[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Reply to Becky/NSS & Env./Zack.

i am lazy and have all this stuff at work;)  when i get back to work on 
monday, i intend to post some of the administrations publicly stated 
priorities for environmental policy.  the uniqueness question is critical, 
and at this point the only place to take this discussion is toward facts and 
data.  our:) assertions are tiring and serve as no proof of the negative 
ground on the pollution topic.

josen raises, i think, an important objection.  so does zack.  i think the 
traditional view of democrats as environmental regulators is understandable, 
however, misinformed.  clinton is not a "stick" kind of guy. someone 
convinced him that "carrots" are better for his image or something.  the epa 
is moving in this direction.  the department of interior is moving in this 
direction.  it is artificial to argue that because new regulations were 
passed this year.....we need to examine HOW administration of environmental 
laws is changing.  anyway, we'll see.  i have the burden of proof:)

ok, now the dems scenario:

remember, if the democrats have the kind of power you are speaking of, 
clinton must still be the president.  i am sure we can agree that dole plus 
the line item veto would ensure any democratic controlled congress would have 
problems with its agenda.  evidence for this is the current republican 
congress who will not be able to claim the kind of success this election year 
it asserted in 1994 (and clinton doesn't even have line item yet!).  

clinton is president; congress (both houses) are democrat!  (look out TD) by 
the way, i agree that this is a tenable scenario.  i forget the exact number, 
i can also look for this on monday, but i remember being told something about 
just a few districts swinging back spells disaster for the Rs.  besides, the 
american people will legitimately be able to say what have you done for me 
lately.  i've seen GREAT stuff lately saying CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT will 
be taking the economic heat in november, etc.  anyway, clinton plus dems.  i 
will deal with this on monday-ish.

clinton is president; congress is republican:  i guess my monday-ish response 
will illustrate this, since it would likely resemble the status quo.

dole is president; congress is republican:  um, uh, can you say deregulation?

dole is president; congress is democrat:  good luck increasing regulations 
with a line item veto.  good luck increasing regulations at the agency level. 
try all new department heads.  anyone remember the doi under bush?

clinton is president; congress is divided (most likely?):  tricky.  oh, who 
cares. if i am right that clinton is a deregulator then the same would 
probably apply to this scenario.  besides, can you imagine ANYTHING gettting 
done under ANY of these scenarios?  i don't know why we are all pretending:) 
me?  skeptical?

dole is president; congress is divided:  nothing still gets done on the 
environment; the dems don't have the votes.  likely they get pressured toward 
deregulation if they aren't already there.

Josen Singh Kalra wrote:
> 
>         So what? I think this is one of the biggest concerns we should
> have. 

sweet, i am excited to resolve it.  what are the other "big" concerns?  hold 
on josh, i'll get to your fiat messages:)

>Your uniqueness position, one of the advantages you cite for the
> pollution topic, could get destroyed if the Democrats do swing the races,
> as they could from what I've read. 

we'll see. i disagree. both of us are making false appeals to authority.  see 
ya on monday-ish.

>Democrats have always maintained regulation as their prime method of solving 
>environmental problems. 

three thoughts. 
1)what does this mean?  the topic doesn't say increase regultion in 
isolation.  remember to reduce the production and or emission?  see above.  
the HOW is awfully important.  clinton's style is different.  ask him:)  
he'll say he is a moderate.

ok, just thought of a good example of why clinton will stay moderate.  three 
months before the republican swing, clinton and big bruce announced the 
admin's ten priority areas for esa reform.  they were stuff like (i'll post 
on monday-ish) make it easier to get habiat conservation plans; ensure 
landowners there will be no surpises (like more regs).  

clinton is brilliant on the environment.  he is playing both sides like a 
fiddle.  business is pushing for dereg because of the perception of political 
feasibility, but almost EVERY top quartile performer is working some kind of 
"voluntary" process with epa and doi.  if it swings back i predict you 
will see moderate reform proposals like the president's ten points.  could 
be wrong.  we could be hosed in november.  but you haven't seen any 
evidence for that, so don't freak.  the radical left is really pissed at him 
right now.  anyone noticing that?  

>This trend towards deregulation is evident in calls to end Big Government, 
>but it still has never been a Democrat position to use that idea on the
> environ. 

then explain why carol and big bruce are bending over backwards to find 
"incentive" based approaches for big business?  the flippin agencies 
themselves:)  can we at least agree that doi and epa are the critical factors 
for the pollution topic?  ok, you will argue the r's are the reason.  above.

>Also, it seems probable to me that if the Dems got a majority
> they would either return to their old familiar tactics of regulation and
> /or simply get their way, i.e. not compromise like they do now.

interesting theory.  i disagree that the mainstream democrats favor lowering 
the boom on business which is what the authors wrote the preferred wording to 
accomplish.  i don't, however, disregard this possibility outright.  i bet on 
election day there would be some great uniqueness answers.  big shock.  no 
matter what happens there will be great cards for someone on election day.  
the dust will settle.  i would like to understand what propensity exists for 
a complete reversal of strategy.  remember, prior to the 1994 swing, we were 
already moving in this direction.  the r's give it more visibility, however, 
even the edf argues for policies in that direction.

> I agree with you Becky; seems to me people will vote for what they want
> to vote for. The pundits have no power!

are josh and i the pundits in the above or was this some sort of humor about 
your above assertions?  if josh and i are the pundits i agree, however, i 
also think these discussions influence people who have not decided.  
although, has ANYONE really NOT? i really wonder what the point of most of 
this is.  cal will vote for nss; so will siu and asu and whoever.  whitman, 
emory, west georgia, and whoever will vote for environment.  some will vote 
for the others.  yadda yadda yadda.  personally, i will feel like the 
discussion was a success if EITHER the nss or environment topics are 
selected.

becky
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page