General: September 2003 Archives

The Bush administration has not been notable for its environmental friendliness. Could that explain why a report concluding "that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers" was released on a Friday afternoon, guaranteeing that no one would notice it? Nah, I'm not that cynical. It was on the front page of the Saturday Washington Post, after all.

Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules: Study Finds Net Gain from Pollution Rules
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A01

A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in significant public health improvements and other benefits to society. The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was defective.

The report, issued this month by the Office of Management and Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from October 1992 to September 2002.

By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated $23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other health-threatening pollutants.

$120 billion of benefits versus a cost of $26 billion sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Why did I have to find out about this via a link from Tapped?

If you'd like to see the full report, which was prepared by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, you can download the PDF from the OMB website: Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities.

There may be a major scandal brewing in the Bush administration. The Washington Post yesterday had a major story on how some administration officials revealed the identity of an undercover CIA operative to journalists.

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry: CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01

Both Dan Drezner and Josh Marshall link to the following quote from remarks by George H.W. Bush on the 16th of April, 1999 at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence:

We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

Meanwhile all Condoleeza Rice can say in response to questions about someone in the administration revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative to Robert Novak among others is "It's with the appropriate channels now, and we'll see what the Justice Department — how the Justice Department disposes of it." That doesn't sound like the reaction of someone who's outraged.

Don't get me wrong. The Justice Department needs to investigate the apparent violation of United States law and the accompanying breach of national security. The guilty party must be held responsible and punished severly. No, I'm not complaining about there being a Justice Department investigation. I'm complaing about the lack of outrage and concern from the White House. "It certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate" do not sound like words spoken by someone who's outraged. They are spoken like someone who's trying to contain a political problem.

They are not the words of someone who thinks that "those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources ... are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on General Wesley Clar, now running for the presidency.

"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

If September 11, 2001 has taught me anything, it's taught me that the liberties that we all take for granted can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.

After 9/11, we were all shell-shocked and horrified. John Ashcroft and others came up with The Patriot Act, to make us all feel safer and to preserve our way of life. It's not clear to me that the Patriot Act has done either. America changed after 9/11. We are less trusting now. That distrust is the very blood the Patriot Act lives on.

The Patriot Act says that for us to feel safer, we must be willing to give up some of the freedoms and due process that we have come to expect. Constitutional rights are conveniently ignored for the greater good of the country (didn't we go through this once before? ...something called McCarthyism?).

A few items from the Patriot Act:
Sec. 206: Allows a wiretap to be granted against an individual, instead of a particular phone. Previously, for example, if a person had a cell phone, a home phone, and an office phone, the government had to obtain separate warrants on each.

Sec. 206: Allows a wiretap to be granted against an individual, instead of a particular phone. Previously, for example, if a person had a cell phone, a home phone, and an office phone, the government had to obtain separate warrants on each.

Sec. 209: Permits the seizure of voice-mail messages under a warrant.

Sec. 213: Allows FBI agents to conduct a search of a business or a place without notifying the owner that the search has been conducted until later.

Section 412 extends the power of the attorney general to detain foreigners. The attorney general can order the detention of any foreigners if he certifies that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" involvement in terrorism or activity that poses a danger to national security. He does not need to explain his reasoning or show evidence.

Sec. 416: Directs the Attorney General to implement fully and expand the foreign student monitoring program to include other approved educational institutions like air flight, language training, or vocational schools.

Gives the FBI expanded powers of access to educational and business records in investigations of suspected terrorist activity. Under the act, records of the books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. The act prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you.

Sec. 814: allows wiretaps for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, including anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage. Critics state that the law expands the powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them), and that it expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, from the situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to any time that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

Critics state that the law allows increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence, repealing some of the barriers put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting joint investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including Martin Luther King Jr. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.

Feel safer now?

Wesley Clark gave a campaign speech at the Citadel yesterday. I don't know much about him, except that he was a Rhodes Scholar and graduated first in his class at West Point. And I don't know whether I'll vote for him in Connecticut's Presidential primary next spring. But Chris Sullentrop's article (Wesley Clark's Patriot Act - The general unveils his campaign message in South Carolina) about his campaign appearances yesterday ends with these paragraphs:

"We need a new spirit, a new kind of, a new American patriotism in this country. … [T]his new spirit of patriotism should be dedicated to the protection of our rights and liberties. … In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised."

No other Democratic candidate, not even John Kerry, could stand in front of two 75 mm howitzers on the quad of a nearly all-male military college and defend the antiwar left without looking faintly ridiculous. Wesley Clark is Howard Dean with flags.

I have to say that sounds pretty good.

For the American people, for citizens in a democracy, patriotism's highest calling isn't simply following what the administration says. It's not blind obedience. It's not unquestioned adherence. The highest form of patriotism is asking questions. Because democracies run on dialogue. Democracies run on discussion. No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic.

I'll be keeping my eye on Clark more than I expected to.

John Ashcroft is on his tour of the country promoting the Patriot Act (and sponsoring a web site, Preserving Life & Liberty, in case you've forgotten). So it's timely to review what the provisions of the act are, especially since some of it's provisions are set to expire in 2005 unless renewed.

I have to confess that, like most people (probably even most members of the press who complain about the Patriot Act), I haven't read it. It is over 300 pages long after all. If you're more diligent and responsible than I, I'll just point you in the right direction.

If you're lazy, like me, there's an easier way to get a good overview of the Patriot Act's provisions. Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner have a four part overview of the act on Slate. Here are the links:

Part I
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I discussed Governor Bob Riley's proposal for a dramatic increase in Alabama state taxes a little over a week ago (September 2, 2003). Riley is a conservative, evangelical Christian, and his argument in favor of the tax increases was explicitly theological, based on a masters thesis written at Beeson Divinity School.

The New York Times reports today that "Alabama Voters Crush Tax Plan Sought by Governor.". Sixty-eight percent of voters opposed the tax plan.

Mr. Riley is widely expected to call a session of the legislature next week to draft a drastically curtailed spending plan. His aides said the austerity measures needed to balance the budget were likely to include cuts of more than 20 percent at some agencies, steep cuts in money for school textbooks and supplies and cuts in money for already overcrowded prisons that could force officials to grant early parole to thousands of nonviolent felons.

The voters of Alabama have spoken loudly, but they may not have spoken well. I hope they can live with the consequences. Some would say that we get the kind of government we deserve, and that may be true for those of us who are comfortable. But I fear that the poor and disadvantaged are not so fortunate.

Bob Riley, a conservative evangelical Christian, is governor of Alabama. Last May he proposed the largest tax increase in Alabama history, $1.2 billion, shifting the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy. In June, the state legislature actually passed the plan, but there is a referendum on September 9th on whether to allow the changes to stand. Not surprisingly, there's a good chance that the changes will be reversed, but that's not what interests me. What interests me is that a conservative, evangelical Christian championed the plan in the first place.

Although there wouldn't seem to be a necessary connection between tax policy and theology, there does seem to be a strong correlation. When was the last time you heard Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson suggesting that the tax burden should be shifted toward wealthy taxpayers and that the total amount of taxes collected should be increased?

Francis Wilkinson describes the genesis of the Alabama plan in a recent article in The American Prospect -- a master's thesis at the Beeson Divinity School of Samford University near Birmingham. The thesis was written by Susan Pace Harnill, a professor of tax law at the University of Alabama who spent her sabbatical studying at Beeson. Her thesis was published in the fall 2002 issue of the Alabama Law Review (you can download a PDF of the file from Professor Harnill's home page) and argued not only that Alabama's regressive tax code is unfair, but that Christians have an obligation to reverse such injustices. From the first page of the article:

"I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." -- Matthew 25:45

With hope that soon Alabama's leaders will find the courage to reform Alabama's tax structure, the author dedicates this Ariticle to Alabama's children, who today are "the least of these," the most vulnerable and powerless segment of Alabama's populations, but who tomorrow hold the keys to Alabama's future. -- SPH

Read the whole article in The American Prospect. Regardless of whether the changes are accepted or rejected in the referendum, Alabama just might be in the forefront of a new political movement among evangelical Christians.