Obama screws over EPA and enviromentalists (Ozone)

[FaxModem1]

Remember when 'Change' and 'Hope' were the big campaign words of 2008? I'm not surprised by this, only disgusted.

[Metahive]

As long as Obama presents a reasonable strong job growth proposal effectively, while its true Republicans are unlikely to support it, this can potentially allow Obama to effectively portray Republicans as unreasonable nuts and help ensure he is re-elected.

Well, he hasn't so far.

As I essentially alluded to previously, its exceedingly probable that Obama would have the EPA implement these regulations eventually during his second term. It would not even be a difficult decision to explain as long as the economic turnaround is noteworthy enough by then.

Would that also be the time where he finally starts decreasing the human rights abuses instead of increasing them? Finally offers more transparency instead of more obscurantism? When unicorns start flying out of his ass?

(For the record its not that I'm thrilled about all of these compromise decisions, but I am pointing out why Obama is making them.)

Or maybe he's just a corporate whore.

[Haruko]

So he caved for no reason. Thanks again Obama.

No, no, you must understand: He must have a super special awesome reason for this apparently harmful decision that must be kept under wraps for National Security reasons. You would understand if you were president and got a briefing on why environmental protection standards actually hurt this country.

I bet it has something to do with aliens. Aliens who will invade if we make the planet so clean that it starts looking more attractive to them. Oh, God! That is probably why we spend several times more on our military than the rest of the world combined! We are preparing for multiple alien invasions to be made simultaneously! Screw the environment! More money for weapons!

Or despite the theory about the president responding more to the wants of the people being that he is elected by the entire country rather than one state or city, he -- like a great many politicians -- has the interests of those of his class (fellow million dollar government officials and those business executives he keeps meeting with so much) closer to heart.

[The Romulan Republic]

While Obama is wealthy, he's not really a corporate type: as far as I know his wealth comes mostly from his books and his salaries as a politician. I could be wrong about that though.

Much like I could never be sure weather Bush was evil or just stupid, I still haven't made up my mind weather Obama is a corrupt, amoral bastard, or simply excessively "pragmatic" and too hesitant to take a firm stand. Either would be bad, but given the choice I'd rather believe he's a well-intentioned but inept leader than simply an utter bastard.

I stand by what I've always said though: he's probably the best we're going to get this election, and given a choice between him and pretty much any GOP candidate currently running for President, I'd rather him.

[darthdavid]

I'm voting third party next election and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Fool me once and all. Yeah, it's unlikely to make a difference but NY is solidly blue anyway and if you keep saying "third parties will never win, so suck it up and vote D to keep those scaaaaaaaary Rs out of office" well that turns into a self fulfilling prophesy, doesn't it? Of course third parties will never win if no one votes for them.

[Block]

I'm voting third party next election and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Fool me once and all. Yeah, it's unlikely to make a difference but NY is solidly blue anyway and if you keep saying "third parties will never win, so suck it up and vote D to keep those scaaaaaaaary Rs out of office" well that turns into a self fulfilling prophesy, doesn't it? Of course third parties will never win if no one votes for them.

It's not just that. Most third party candidates tend to be wackjobs that aren't worth voting for, they may have a good idea or two, but the overall platforms tend to be pretty bad.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm voting third party next election and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Fool me once and all. Yeah, it's unlikely to make a difference but NY is solidly blue anyway and if you keep saying "third parties will never win, so suck it up and vote D to keep those scaaaaaaaary Rs out of office" well that turns into a self fulfilling prophesy, doesn't it? Of course third parties will never win if no one votes for them.

If the Republicans were a sane, reasonable opposition party I might be more willing to take that gamble. As it stands, with the opposition being someone like Perry or Bachman, you're virtually playing Russian Roulette with the country.

Note, I'm not saying all Democrats should be given unconditional support. There are these little things called "Primaries." I fully encourage people to use them. Hell, they're the main reason I gave up my status as an independent and registered as a Democrat- so I could cast a Primary vote.

[Aasharu]

It's not just that. Most third party candidates tend to be wackjobs that aren't worth voting for, they may have a good idea or two, but the overall platforms tend to be pretty bad.

This. I've yet to see any third party candidates with any sort of viable platform. I'd much rather vote for a more progressive democrat in the primaries. Of course, the question then is, are there any progressive democrats out there with even the slightest hope of winning?

[darthdavid]

I'm voting third party next election and encouraging everyone I know to do the same. Fool me once and all. Yeah, it's unlikely to make a difference but NY is solidly blue anyway and if you keep saying "third parties will never win, so suck it up and vote D to keep those scaaaaaaaary Rs out of office" well that turns into a self fulfilling prophesy, doesn't it? Of course third parties will never win if no one votes for them.

If the Republicans were a sane, reasonable opposition party I might be more willing to take that gamble. As it stands, with the opposition being someone like Perry or Bachman, you're virtually playing Russian Roulette with the country.

Note, I'm not saying all Democrats should be given unconditional support. There are these little things called "Primaries." I fully encourage people to use them. Hell, they're the main reason I gave up my status as an independent and registered as a Democrat- so I could cast a Primary vote.

Well as I said, NY is pretty solidly blue. As for primaries, well, I feel as though that's not going to be very effective. The only reason the Tea Party has been half as successful as it has in shifting the Republican power structure is because it plays right into the interests of several well funded and well connected power-blocks. None of the interests I support have those advantages so trying to stage an insurrection within the Dems seems unlikely to succeed. Plus the two party system has a lot of inherent flaws. Much better in my mind to force the issue by building up a base of support and using it to bring a third party to the table.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not just that. Most third party candidates tend to be wackjobs that aren't worth voting for, they may have a good idea or two, but the overall platforms tend to be pretty bad.

This. I've yet to see any third party candidates with any sort of viable platform. I'd much rather vote for a more progressive democrat in the primaries. Of course, the question then is, are there any progressive democrats out there with even the slightest hope of winning?

If you want far Left wing Democrats, I suggest you start by looking at the ones who joined their Tea Party counterparts in refusing to vote for the debt compromise. Of course, I'd like to find someone who was further Left than Obama but not so crazy as to oppose the debt compromise, which really was, I think, justified.

Well as I said, NY is pretty solidly blue. As for primaries, well, I feel as though that's not going to be very effective. The only reason the Tea Party has been half as successful as it has in shifting the Republican power structure is because it plays right into the interests of several well funded and well connected power-blocks. None of the interests I support have those advantages so trying to stage an insurrection within the Dems seems unlikely to succeed. Plus the two party system has a lot of inherent flaws. Much better in my mind to force the issue by building up a base of support and using it to bring a third party to the table.

Yeah, New York is probably safe.

However, I question the logic of saying those interests lack the support to take over the Democratic Party while simultaneously betting that they can build a third party from scratch. I'd think the latter would be harder than the former.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

If the Republicans were a sane, reasonable opposition party I might be more willing to take that gamble. As it stands, with the opposition being someone like Perry or Bachman, you're virtually playing Russian Roulette with the country.

Don't forget Carl Paladino. NY might have defeated the fucker, but that doesn't stop the would-be totalitarian from running a PotUS bid.

[Slacker]

That man was insane. When your campaign slogan is "I'm mad as hell, too, Carl" you know you're dealing with someone who's not completely on-level.

[TheHammer]

You can't always get what you want. The political reality is that with the economy like it is, Obama needed to pick his battles. Laying newer tougher regulations on US Companies while no such regulations are being bound on the likes of China and India would make us less competative. So he choose to concede the battle at this particular time, focus on getting the economy moving, and can try again during (hopefully) his second term.

“I think obviously the administration has done some great things,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’s senior vice president for government affairs. “But there’s also been some real disappointments, and today’s ozone announcement is at the top of the list."

[D.Turtle]

Except that all his concessions have lead to a weakening of the economy and not to a strengthening.

He had the choice between "Fight and help the economy" and "concede and help the economy less or even hurt it". He decided to concede.

[darthdavid]

Yeah, New York is probably safe.

However, I question the logic of saying those interests lack the support to take over the Democratic Party while simultaneously betting that they can build a third party from scratch. I'd think the latter would be harder than the former.

Because the democratic party is already bought and paid for by corporate interests, has a leadership structure that would do their level best to stop any takeover of that nature and has been heavily tainted in the eyes of progressives (making it hard to build up enthusiasm).

Sure, empowering a third party gives up a lot of advantages that the Democrats hold, but you wouldn't be fighting against the party leadership and the conservative and centrist wings of the party every step of the way while hauling along all of the party's baggage. Sometimes starting with a blank slate is the best thing you can do...

[TheHammer]

Except that all his concessions have lead to a weakening of the economy and not to a strengthening.

He had the choice between "Fight and help the economy" and "concede and help the economy less or even hurt it". He decided to concede.

What pray tell should he have fought for that would have "helped the economy"?

[Surlethe]

RE the MoveOn quote in the OP: are those 12,000 lives saved the TOTAL benefit of the new regulations or the MARGINAL benefit of the new regulations? That is an extremely important detail.

[darthdavid]

Except that all his concessions have lead to a weakening of the economy and not to a strengthening.

He had the choice between "Fight and help the economy" and "concede and help the economy less or even hurt it". He decided to concede.

What pray tell should he have fought for that would have "helped the economy"?

Single-payer healthcare, ending the Bush tax-cuts, more stimulus, better targeted stimulus... need I say more?

[The Romulan Republic]

Given the opposition of Republicans and conservative Democrats and the filibuster, I doubt that single-payer health care was ever going to happen. The bulk of the responsibility here goes to Congress.

Also, didn't he want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but the GOP controlled House said no?

[D.Turtle]

What pray tell should he have fought for that would have "helped the economy"?

While some things like single-payer were never going to pass, Obama does bear responsibility for things like advocating a too-small stimulus and then loudly defending it as sufficient. Obama bears responsibility for not demanding stronger regulation of the financial sector. Obama bears responsibility for not demanding a debt limit increase during the budget negotiations, leading to further austerity measures. Obama bears responsibility for following Republicans in focusing on the deficit and ignoring the economy (though maybe, maybe he is starting to change that focus just a little).

Those are all things directly damaging the economy that he conceded on (giving your opponent 98% of what they want is not compromise).

[Surlethe]

Let me reiterate my question: are the quoted numbers marginal or total? (That goes for the $90 billion cost and the 12,000 lives saved.)

Say they're honest numbers and not cooked up or exaggerated, like I suspect they are. Further assume they are in fact marginal numbers, and not total numbers dishonestly implied to be marginal changes like I suspect they are. One life is worth about $10 million, so the maximum acceptable cost of a regulation which saves 12,000 lives is actually about $120 billion. Worth it.

But be careful: That's pretty sensitive to assumptions. If a life is worth $6 million, as IIRC the EPA decided a few years ago, then the maximum acceptable cost of regulation is $72 billion. Not worth it.

This is not a cut-and-dried issue; it's much more of a judgment call than it seems at first glance. Of course, in addition to the simple math, Obama is concerned about politics: if it does actually cost jobs, by crowding out workers who would be otherwise gainfully employed, then it's going to hurt his re-election bid.

(By the way, the fact the issue is not clear-cut illustrates that environmental legislation is near-optimal, and any "good" changes will be small on the margin.)

Mind, if the numbers are actually total instead of marginal, then the preceding math does not apply. My gut tells me it's more likely that the $90 billion cost is marginal, but exaggerated by a factor of two, and the 12,000 lives saved is total (comparing the new regulation to no regulation), while the marginal lives saved is an order of magnitude smaller. But I really should be studying at the moment, so I don't have time to verify.

[TheHammer]

Except that all his concessions have lead to a weakening of the economy and not to a strengthening.

He had the choice between "Fight and help the economy" and "concede and help the economy less or even hurt it". He decided to concede.

What pray tell should he have fought for that would have "helped the economy"?

Single-payer healthcare, ending the Bush tax-cuts, more stimulus, better targeted stimulus... need I say more?

Ending single payer healthcare helps the economy how?

Ending the bush tax cuts helps with the national debt, but its a leap to say it would "help the economy".

More stimulus? Better targeted stimulus? Maybe some details would be nice, other than just a "throw buzzwords around" response.

[TheHammer]

What pray tell should he have fought for that would have "helped the economy"?

While some things like single-payer were never going to pass, Obama does bear responsibility for things like advocating a too-small stimulus and then loudly defending it as sufficient. Obama bears responsibility for not demanding stronger regulation of the financial sector. Obama bears responsibility for not demanding a debt limit increase during the budget negotiations, leading to further austerity measures. Obama bears responsibility for following Republicans in focusing on the deficit and ignoring the economy (though maybe, maybe he is starting to change that focus just a little).

Again, nothing you demonstrated would "help" the economy. How much bigger would the stimulus have to have been? Obama's already taking it in the chops for the stimulus he got. There is no clear indication that it would have made a difference anyway.

Like it or not, stronger regulation tends to have a negative impact on the economy. While it would have helped prevent what happend in 2008, the current financial crisis isn't because US Bank regulation isn't strong enough. A lot of it isn't Obama's fault. Europe's financial crisis is negatively affecting markets over here.

Yeah, the Republicans proved to be more stubborn and shameless than Obama had realized during the debt deal. I suppose you could call it a mistake to assume congress would do as it always has done and raise the debt ceiling to match the budget it had itself approved. But its not as if Obama didn't fight for it as much as he could.

Those are all things directly damaging the economy that he conceded on (giving your opponent 98% of what they want is not compromise).

Sorry, but I don't see it.

[darthdavid]

Ending single payer healthcare helps the economy how?

Ending the bush tax cuts helps with the national debt, but its a leap to say it would "help the economy".

More stimulus? Better targeted stimulus? Maybe some details would be nice, other than just a "throw buzzwords around" response.

Enacting single payer healthcare would lower our per-capita medical expenses, reduce the number of bankruptcies and foreclosures that have their roots in medical bills, reduce the amount of time and productivity lost to illness and make America a more attractive place for companies to hire large number of people in by taking responsibility for health-insurance out of their hands.

The Bush tax cuts are targeted at the wealthiest segment of the population, they hoard their money it would actually get spent if it went into the government coffers. Increasing the government's cash intake would help pay for stimulus while soothing fears about an unsustainable national deficit.

A good chunk 'stimulus' was largely pointless tax breaks. We should have had more of it, and focused more on upgrading our infrastructure, jobs training, helping people get a college education and other things that offer long-term concrete benefits.

Again, nothing you demonstrated would "help" the economy. How much bigger would the stimulus have to have been? Obama's already taking it in the chops for the stimulus he got. There is no clear indication that it would have made a difference anyway.

It's basic economic theory to expand in a recession and contract in times of prosperity. The stimulus was mistargeted and overly focused on tax breaks. A bigger, better thought-out stimulus would almost certainly have helped things out.

Like it or not, stronger regulation tends to have a negative impact on the economy. While it would have helped prevent what happend in 2008, the current financial crisis isn't because US Bank regulation isn't strong enough. A lot of it isn't Obama's fault. Europe's financial crisis is negatively affecting markets over here.

Regulation has a negative effect on short-term, unsustainable growth and using the market like your personal casino. But that is, of course, exactly what we need. God for-fucking-bid we actually make Wall Street behave like responsible adults. And yes, he wasn't president when most of the deregulation was enacted. He is now, and he's done very little to fix it.

Yeah, the Republicans proved to be more stubborn and shameless than Obama had realized during the debt deal. I suppose you could call it a mistake to assume congress would do as it always has done and raise the debt ceiling to match the budget it had itself approved. But its not as if Obama didn't fight for it as much as he could.

Gee it's not like he had an opportunity to force the issue before it came to the brink of crisis and took them at their word despite getting stabbed in the back every other time he extended the slightest bit of trust to the scumbags... oh wait that's exactly what fucking happened!

[D.Turtle]

Again, nothing you demonstrated would "help" the economy. How much bigger would the stimulus have to have been? Obama's already taking it in the chops for the stimulus he got. There is no clear indication that it would have made a difference anyway.

Basic economic theory (and common-sense) makes it obvious that the government spending more would lead to an increase in GDP. There were voices (Krugman at the forefront) shouting at Obama that the stimulus would not be sufficient. Guess what, it wasn't sufficient. Even now, it is quite clear that the US economy is suffering from too little demand, and that companies are not investing, but instead are hoarding their money. The government in that situation is in the unique position of being capable of jump-starting the economy.

Like it or not, stronger regulation tends to have a negative impact on the economy. While it would have helped prevent what happend in 2008, the current financial crisis isn't because US Bank regulation isn't strong enough. A lot of it isn't Obama's fault. Europe's financial crisis is negatively affecting markets over here.

Yes, lowering all those regulations definitely helped the economy by enabling banks to speculate to the extreme and leading to a global financial crisis...

Yeah, the Republicans proved to be more stubborn and shameless than Obama had realized during the debt deal. I suppose you could call it a mistake to assume congress would do as it always has done and raise the debt ceiling to match the budget it had itself approved. But its not as if Obama didn't fight for it as much as he could.

Obama was point-blank asked why he didn't make raising the debt-ceiling a requirement for the budget deal, as not raising it would give the Republicans a lot of leverage over him. His response: He doesn't think it would be a problem, because Republicans know it is needed and would act responsibly. That worked out well...

Sorry, but I don't see it.

Its not my fault you can't understand basic economics.