It’s like Bush is channeling James Watt…

Mar 8, ’04 2:31 PM

Just when I was getting the hang of what is happening with the Administration, tax cuts, and deficits, a news item from BushGreenwatch caused me to remember that the fight over responsible forest protection isn’t over by a long shot.  This is a long-standing issue for me, having spent some of my graduate school days poring over environmental impact statements and maps of old growth forests in Washington and Oregon.  

After a protracted battle, the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan put into place some minimal protections for 450+ species and key ecosystems in the forests of the Pacific Northwest.  In particular, a program called “Survey and Manage” forced the Forest Disservice Service and Bureau of Livestock and Mining Land Management to actually look at logging sites for rare (not just endangered) species.

Well…you can guess the rest of the story.  Annual reviews of species covered by the program have been instituted (2001), and as a result, only 296 species and four arthropod groups are now covered.  And to top it off, as a result of lawsuits by timber companies, a revised Final Supplemental EIS has been filed which recommends removing the Survey and Manage program entirely.  To quote the “key points” in the EIS, the “reason for this proposal is to improve the agencies’ ability to implement the Northwest Forest Plan which balances healthy forest ecosystem objectives and sustainable commodity production.”  Apparently, spending the time checking on the ground for rare species before clearcutting removes them wasn’t enough of a balance – in the direction of “sustainable commodity production.”  

After basically claiming that the program is wasting “valuable public resources,” the report does mention that the agencies “remain concerned about the management of rare species” but claim that other programs, such as Special Status Species Programs and the Endangered Species Act were sufficient to the task.  In other words, call us when there’s a fire to put out – we’re not interested in prevention. 

Oh, and my favorite part…the language.  In a stunning example of the Administration’s command of euphemism, “risk of extirpation” has been changed in the final EIS to read “sufficiency of habitat to support sustainable populations.” 

It’s been hard, these last three years, to keep the entire scope of what the Administration has been up to in full view.  They’ve been busy making war on many fronts, and not all of them overseas.  

Comments (14)

Odd reports from Zimbabwe…

Mar 8, ’04 12:56 PM

This is really a strange report:  a US-registered Boeing 727 was detained at the airport in Harare, Zimbabwe yesterday and found to be carrying what are described as 64 “mercenaries” and “military material.”  The plane has been moved to a military base for an investigation of the identities of the passengers and their mission. 

I don’t even have a good speculation about this, but I’m gonna be watching the news for a resolution on this.  A new escapade?  Covert mission whose cover got blown?  The thing I love about RSS feeds is that I’d never read news like this otherwise.  Sadly, with nearly 100 RSS feeds, I’m trying to remember where I saw this…

Comments Off on Odd reports from Zimbabwe…

Possible VP candidates not interested?

Mar 8, ’04 7:49 AM

Richardson, Graham, and Rendell appeared on Face the Nation this Sunday, and none appeared interested in the VP slot.   Richardson indicated that he’s only been governor of New Mexico for a year, and is happy in the job.  Graham basically deflected the question, saying little positive or negative either way.  Rendell basically recommended that Kerry pick somebody popular from a state Bush won in 2000.  

As I mentioned last week, the “southern strategy” for VP makes a lot of sense, and in that post, I predicted that Edwards or Graham would be the top possibilities.  Which raises an interesting question – what if neither Edwards nor Graham are interested?  Kevin Drum has some interesting arguments about why Edwards might not want to be VP – especially if Kerry doesn’t win.   No losing VP candidate has ever come back and won in a future presidential race.

Although this does have to be tempered by the fact that many recent VP candidates simply weren’t presidential material themselves.  As a commenter to Drum’s post pointed out:  Lieberman is a terrible campaigner, Quayle is….Quayle, and so on.  The data aren’t suitable for really determining whether there’s a causal factor here, but I would suspect that it has more to do with the candidates themselves rather than something structural.

I firmly believe that Edwards will serve as VP candidate if asked by Kerry.  He’d be stupid not to.  He’s not going back to the Senate in the meantime, so he’d have to run for a shorter-term House seat (which is death…) or try for a Governor-ship.  If Kerry/Edwards lose, he’s still fairly strong and can rebuild by running for the Senate again.  If they win, then Edwards is likely the presumptive nominee in 2012, whether Kerry wins re-election in 2008 or not.    

Prediction:  it’s gonna be Edwards.   I know that’s not original, but logic points in this direction.  There aren’t any governors other than Rendell or Richardson that look attractive.  Edwards had enough momentum that putting him on the ticket could further unify the Dems, and we get a “southern strategy” in the deal.  

Comments (9)

Bush’s former business school prof speaks out

Mar 4, ’04 4:07 AM

 Thanks to Atrios for the link.  Yoshi Tsurumi, Professor of International Business at City University of New York, and formerly of Harvard Business School) apparently had Bush as a student some thirty years ago.  Here’s what he had to say:

I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that “people are poor because they are lazy.” He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to “free market competition.” To him, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was “socialism.” Recently, President Bush’s Federal Appeals Court Nominee, California’s Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, repeated the same broadside at her Senate hearing. She knew that her pronouncement would please President Bush and Karl Rove and their Senators. President Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, are leading a radical revolution of destroying all the democratic political, social, judiciary, and economic institutions that both Democrats and moderate Republicans had built together since Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Tsurumi goes on to quote Bill Moyers as saying that Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William McKinley, who was the quintessential big-business robber-baron politican.  It’s so funny – I just had a conversation last night where I was claiming that Bush seemed to want to “roll back the New Deal and return us to the Gilded Age, complete with robber barons.”  It’s so exact an analogy, it hurts to even think about.  

I strongly recommend reading Tsurumi’s full article, it includes a lot of good analysis of economic policies, and the direction things are headed.  

Comments (8)

House Select Committee report on Homeland Security

Mar 4, ’04 3:08 AM

The House Select Committee on Homeland Security recently released its report on the state of security in the U.S., and the performance of the Department of Homeland Security.  The full report is 135 pages, and I read enough to satisfy myself that the executive summary is actually representative of the report.  I’d recommend just reading the summary. 

The substance is about what you’d expect.  We’re not funding key efforts within the United States, having diverted far more of our effort and dollars to Iraq.  Some highlights:

·         DHS hasn’t yet completed a threat and vulnerability assessment to set priorities for what we can do.  

·         100+ nuclear sites in the former Soviet Union need security improvements.  These sites contain 600 metric tons of nuclear materials, enough for 41,000 warheads (presumably even more if the material is used for multiple-kiloton rather than megaton bombs).

·         Outside Russia, 20+ tons of highly enriched uranium exists at 130 sites in 40 countries, many with little or no effective security.  

·         Without belaboring the details, we are utterly unequipped to deal with a widespread biological attack.  The public health system lacks the staff, laboratory facilities, or funding to handle a major crisis.  

·         Only a tiny fraction of the 7 million cargo containers that arrive in American ports are physically inspected or mechanically screened.  The vast majority of these containers have no tamper resistant seals, and the majority are not screened for radiological materials or nuclear devices.  Less than 100 inspectors are assigned to foreign ports to screen cargo before it leaves for the United States.  

·         The Coast Guard estimates that ports need to spend $1.1 billion this year, and $5.4 billion over 10 years, to meet security standards.  In other words, for the price of about a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can implement a ten year program to secure our ports.  The Administration’s budgets for 2002 – 2004 have allocated only $46 million for port security, and although Congress supplemented this strongly, there is a $566 million funding gap in 2004 alone.

·         We won’t even mention border security.  There’s nothing good to report.

·         Air security:  focused mainly on passenger screening, has ignored air cargo screening and airport employee security standards.  

·         Virtually none of our critical infrastructure is secure:  chemical plants, dams, electrical power generation, water systems, pipelines, etc.  There isn’t even a comprehensive risk assessment of our infrastructure, so we don’t really even know what it’ll take or cost to secure it.  Basically, the entire problem has been left to the private sector, with no public incentives for the companies to spend the money needed to secure their assets.  

·         Government IT systems and networks are insecure, with the DHS itself receiving the lowest security rating of any federal agency:  34% compliance.  I find that disturbing, ironic, and not at all surprising.  

·         First responders – whose criticality was amply demonstrated on 9/11 – have received no real assistance in federal budgets since then.  Federal grant programs exist, but aren’t moving quickly and the formulas are all whacked out:  states with high-risk targets like California and New York are getting $6 per capita, while states which probably aren’t on anybody’s hit list are getting over $30 per person.  

That’s enough headlines.  The overall picture that emerges should surprise nobody who (a) has followed the reality of homeland security efforts since 9/11, or (b) is no longer surprised to find that the Administration consistently talks the talk, but never walks the walk.  

I hope Kerry’s staff is reading this report carefully as well.  Frankly, the Homeland Security strategy on Kerry’s website is a bit weak.  The “targeted alert system” and “homeland security corps” ideas are good, but more attention needs to be given to the stuff which is less sexy, as outlined in this report.

Of course, the report also outlines some threats that I have no idea how they could protect against, like shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles targeting passenger airlines.  Don’t get me wrong, I fly a lot and I’m kind of hoping somebody finds a way to protect me against this threat, but let’s be realistic about how difficult it is to protect against it…

Comments (22)

Selecting a running mate

Mar 4, ’04 2:20 AM

Wow…Kerry is moving quickly on his running mate.  Yesterday, Kerry himself “leaked” the fact that James Johnson (former Fannie Mae chairman) to lead the search team.  The Washington Post reported this morning that the net will be cast widely:

Kerry is expected to cast a wide net for governors, women, minorities and swing-state political powerhouses. This will allow him to stroke key officials and constituencies and to ensure that no one who might help the campaign effort is overlooked. Among those who may be considered, according to speculation outside the Kerry campaign, are four former rivals for the nomination: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sens. John Edwards (N.C.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark. Several swing-state governors, including Iowa’s Tom Vilsack, Pennsylvania’s Edward G. Rendell and New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, could add non-Washington balance to the ticket.

Several women are being talked about, including former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, and former health and human services secretary Donna E. Shalala. Rep. John Lewis (Ga.), a civil rights champion, could be included.

Folks outside the campaign have also floated Robert Rubin and Hillary Clinton as possible running mates.  Frankly, I think the chances of Hillary being the running mate are virtually nil – she may be powerful in Democratic politics but she’s going to show ambiguously among the population.  Let’s be honest, the running mate is going to be Southern, it’s going to be male (sadly, I don’t think the campaign is going to take any risks), which means that Edwards and Bob Graham have got to be the front-running candidates.  

Rubin would indeed add economic strength, but he’d be even better as a SecTreas candidate.  Or possibly a replacement for Greenspan at the end of his next term – the guy has got to go.  A good subject for another post, I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Krugman:  the Fed Chair has been dabbling in politics instead of being the trusted neutral party for fiscal policy ever since he endorsed Bush’s original tax cuts.  And his performance lately has sealed the deal.

Clark is an interesting possibility but I think the campaign will ultimately go with somebody higher profile, who can bring some political clout, not just character.  I still maintain that Clark will be considered for a cabinet or high-ranking post.  

Comments Off on Selecting a running mate