By BRETT SHIPP - WFAA-TV News 8 Investigation - Oct. 18, 2007
A deadly natural gas explosion in Wylie last year is fueling a new debate about the safety of many North Texans.
At least 100,000 of the questionable couplings that failed in the Wylie case are still in the ground in North Texas.
News 8 discovered these are the same fittings that have been popping loose under the elastic North Texas soil, leaking natural gas into houses and causing deadly explosions for decades.
When leaking gas was blamed for the October 2006 explosion that killed Benny and Martha Cryer, neighbors like Coral Watkins said they were not surprised. Watkins said many of her neighbors had complained to the gas company for years.
"You used to could just walk out and it would hit you in the face," she said. "[I] complained to Atmos, and they would come out and say they couldn't smell anything."
As it turns out, Watkins and her neighbors were right. Days after the gas leak and explosion that killed the Cryers, Atmos crews made a shocking discovery. Gas lines were leaking all over the neighborhood.
Twenty-four were discovered, even though Atmos officials said they could find no leaks during tests run in the neighborhood one year before.
Atmos officials have declined to discuss on camera with News 8 the nature of the leaks citing ongoing litigation, but insist that the original pipeline equipment was installed properly.
The leak that killed Benny and Martha Cryer was traced to a gas line that had separated from its fitting. Installed in the '70s, what's known as a non-restraint, compression coupling had pulled loose of the pipe. Unlike most fittings that lock tight, the non-restraint, compression coupling's only mechanism to grip the pipe is a rubber seal.
According to Atmos construction worker Allan Burrow, who was recently deposed in a lawsuit against Atmos, the coupling has a history of slipping out.
"The washer on the inside had a tendency to dry up over a period of years and just start, just causing a leak," he said.
Atmos officials said they replace the couplings after they leak and will replace them when they discover one still in the ground.
But federal pipeline safety regulations already require action and states, "each segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be replaced or removed from service."
By not removing all of the old couplings out of the ground, Atmos is leaving tens of thousands of potentially deadly couplings still in the very elastic North Texas soil.
In 1980, the National Transportation Safety Board investigating a fatal house explosion in Keller determined, "soil stress loosened one end of the compression coupling."
In that same report the NTSB declared, "compression couplings were not designed to prevent pullout."
Pipeline engineer Don Deaver of Houston said compression couplings are known throughout the industry as dangerous and the manufacturers even warn of a potential pullout. "And this has been known for a long time," he said. "These warnings have been here for many, many years."
On December 8, 2006, Texas Railroad Commission investigators released their preliminary findings on the Cryers' house explosion. Among their findings was a "line that separated from a compression coupling... possibly due to shifting of soil" and "natural ground movement".
According to an inter-office email just days before the final report was released, Railroad Commission Safety Director Mary McDaniel and her investigator discussed the couplings' "susceptibility to pull out with stress."
But five days later, when the Wylie explosion final report became public, News 8 noticed a glaring omission. There was no mention of the flawed couplings and no criticism of Atmos and the 24 leaks in one neighborhood.
Instead, the report alluded to "possible damage" to the gas line during "third party" activity. In other words, another utility, not Atmos, might be to blame for the pullout.
In a notification letter to Atmos, the safety director "thanked Atmos for their assistance" with what she termed "a favorable report" and praised Atmos' "efforts to maintain their pipeline".
Deaver said he's shocked by the language in the final report.
"I don't understand the reason for even making that statement," he said. "It's almost suggesting that there's a lack of independence between the Texas Railroad Commission and the industry its regulating when it gets to be so chummy and makes those statements considering two people were dead." News 8 also obtained an internal memo dated December 8, 2006 from Regional Safety Director Jody Kerl to her boss Mary McDaniel regarding the Wylie explosion.
Based on her concerns, Kerl recommends "an expedited program to phase out" the compression couplings attached to the gas meters. But just weeks ago, McDaniel told News 8 she rejected Kerl's recommendation.
Her reasoning was that McDaniel said there is nothing to back it up.
"There was one incident in Wylie that happened at that time," said McDaniel. "We didn't have any information that would suggest we had a problem with compression type couplings."
Meanwhile, on January 25t, 2007, one month after Kerl's recommendation to remove the couplings, a homeowner was injured when natural gas leaked into her house near Houston and exploded.
The preliminary cause according to state investigators was that settling soil had caused a compression coupling to fail.
Five months later, on May 29, two people were killed and three injured when natural gas leaked into a home in Cleburne. The preliminary cause, a compression coupling that failed.
Read entire article
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Senate panel OKs wiretap bill, telecom immunity
By Randall Mikkelsen - Reuthers - Thu., Oct. 18, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects, but a Democratic presidential candidate said on Thursday he would try to block it.
The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties.
"It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past," Rockefeller told reporters.
The Senate committee's action came a day after a Democratic effort collapsed in the House of Representatives to pass an eavesdropping bill opposed by the White House.
Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, called the Senate bill "a delicate arrangement of compromises."
The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans, committee leaders said.
It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.
The House bill would have required court approval when eavesdropping on terrorism suspects who might call Americans, and omitted the phone company immunity.
To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans.
An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years.
Rockefeller said he was optimistic the White House would support the bill, but Bond indicated an amendment -- evidently the one on overseas Americans -- may need more work.
DODD PLANS 'HOLD'
Sen. Chris Dodd said he intended to put a procedural "hold" on the bill, which could effectively block it from a Senate vote. The Connecticut Democrat, who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee, said on his presidential campaign Web site he opposed the telecom immunity provision.
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said he voted against the committee's bill because of the immunity provision, despite winning passage of the amendment on Americans overseas.
Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, also voted against the bill, citing the immunity provision and the lack of a warrant requirement when a suspect's call involves Americans.
The immunity would not apply to any eavesdropping before September 11, 2001. Bond said that before then, "there was interception of radio communications on a broad basis," but later described that as an allegation.
An administration official said earlier that aides were still reviewing provisions of the deal reached before the Senate committee met and had some concerns, but called it "much better" than the House bill.
Read more
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects, but a Democratic presidential candidate said on Thursday he would try to block it.
The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties.
"It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past," Rockefeller told reporters.
The Senate committee's action came a day after a Democratic effort collapsed in the House of Representatives to pass an eavesdropping bill opposed by the White House.
Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, called the Senate bill "a delicate arrangement of compromises."
The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans, committee leaders said.
It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.
The House bill would have required court approval when eavesdropping on terrorism suspects who might call Americans, and omitted the phone company immunity.
To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans.
An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years.
Rockefeller said he was optimistic the White House would support the bill, but Bond indicated an amendment -- evidently the one on overseas Americans -- may need more work.
DODD PLANS 'HOLD'
Sen. Chris Dodd said he intended to put a procedural "hold" on the bill, which could effectively block it from a Senate vote. The Connecticut Democrat, who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee, said on his presidential campaign Web site he opposed the telecom immunity provision.
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said he voted against the committee's bill because of the immunity provision, despite winning passage of the amendment on Americans overseas.
Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, also voted against the bill, citing the immunity provision and the lack of a warrant requirement when a suspect's call involves Americans.
The immunity would not apply to any eavesdropping before September 11, 2001. Bond said that before then, "there was interception of radio communications on a broad basis," but later described that as an allegation.
An administration official said earlier that aides were still reviewing provisions of the deal reached before the Senate committee met and had some concerns, but called it "much better" than the House bill.
Read more
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
BREAKING: Breasts Found More Dangerous Than Gas Wells
By TxSHARON - BLUEDAZE - Oct. 16,2007
Despite all today's news about the dangers of gas wells, pipelines and injections wells, Fort Worth residents found breasts more dangerous than any of the above.
Read entire article on BLUEDAZE.
Despite all today's news about the dangers of gas wells, pipelines and injections wells, Fort Worth residents found breasts more dangerous than any of the above.
Read entire article on BLUEDAZE.
Goode: Bush wants North American Union to increase profits for corporations
By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Link to article here.
Rep. Virgil Goode says below: "We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer." Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system.
Congress debate begins on North America Union
Resolution calls for end of NAFTA superhighway, abandonment of integration with Canada, Mexico
By Jerome R. Corsi - WorldNetDaily.com - September 25, 2007
House resolution urging President Bush "not to go forward with the North American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is – according to its sponsor Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in an exclusive WND interview – "also a message to both the executive branch and the legislative branch."
As WND previously reported, on Jan. 22 Goode introduced H.C.R. 40, titled "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
"Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer."
How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP could turn into the North American Union as "conspiracy theorists"?
"The president is really engaging in a play on words," Goode responded. "The secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee," he explained, "and I had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, she answered, 'There's no NAFTA Superhighway.' But then Mary Peters proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go through the United States up into Canada."
Goode is a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development of the House Committee on Appropriations.
"So, I think that saying we're 'conspiracy theorists' or something like that is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition," Goode concluded.
Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system: "The Bush administration as well as Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into the United States and then in onto Canada," Goode confirmed.
The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from global trade, especially moving production to China.
"Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins," he argued.
"I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country," Goode continued. "The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S. trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration."
As WND reported, the Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck "demonstration project" under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S.
Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.
WND reported last month that Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from spending any federal funds to implement the truck project.
Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed her vote to support Dorgan.
By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable to Dorgan's, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement the truck project.
DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor carriers.
"With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas," Goode argued. "A lot of these Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of unloading at U.S. ports."
"So, when you look at the total package," he continued, "we do have a NAFTA Superhighway system already in place. There are those in all three countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty."
Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and telling their constituents that they don't know anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase our competitiveness?
"In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the transportation funding bill," Goode responded. "I commend Congressman Duncan Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
As WND reported, Hunter's amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Transportation funding bill prohibiting DOT from using federal funds to participate in SPP working groups creating NAFTA Superhighways passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. The House approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.
"So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP, would vote down on the SPP," Goode concluded. "But some still say, and it's a play on words, that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that will lead to a North American Union. I don't think they can say anymore that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further."
WND asked Goode to comment on the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, a group of multinational corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as the central adviser of SPP working groups.
At the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, the NACC met behind closed doors with the three leaders, cabinet secretaries who were present, and top SPP working group bureaucrats, while various public advocacy groups, environmental groups, labor unions – and the press – were excluded.
Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public?
"I wish they were," Goode responded. "If it is as the Bush administration says, 'We're not planning any North American Union,' then why wouldn’t those meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?" Goode asked.
"But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in here unchecked," he continued. "It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach. But if you can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that's going to be cheaper. And it's all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money the multi-national corporations are going to make."
Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate?
"I think so," Goode said. "That debate had a very positive effect. You had grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.
"The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these issues," Goode added. "Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through the Senate not once, but twice.
"The Bush administration claims it's not [amnesty] when you let someone stay in the country and give them a path to citizenship," Goode pointed out. "Well, that's their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the majority of the public. The majority of the public called in and buried the amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country."
So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP?
"Yes," Goode answered, "but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief executive that wouldn't do anything with it."
What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU, anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions?
"If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should have an impact on the House and the Senate," Goode said.
"President Bush's position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada," Goode explained. "Well, Bush's approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines the security and the safety of the country.
"It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and put the goods and material in a U.S. truck," he continued.
"The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to money," Goode stressed. "The multinational companies want their goods from Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor."
What about the U.S.'s large and growing trade imbalance with China?
"I don't want to have to be an 'I told you so' person," Goode answered, "but I was a vigorous opponent of PNTR ("permanent normal trade relations") and before that of 'most favored nation' trade status with China. We need tariffs and quotas with China. Personally, if I know food is coming in from China, I won't buy it. The American people with the adoption of COOL, country of origin labeling, with the food clearly labeled, I think you will see the American public will shy away from Chinese products."
In 2000, Congress voted to extend to China PNTR. "Most favored nation" or MFN trade status, was given to China first in 1980 by the Carter administration. COOL rules are administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Goode concluded the interview by thanking WND for covering the SPP, NAU and NAFTA Superhighway issues: "I want to thank you for putting these issues out where people can read it," Goode said. "You have enlightened hundreds of thousands if not millions of American citizens who otherwise would have been greatly in the dark on the SPP."
Link to article here.
Rep. Virgil Goode says below: "We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer." Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system.
Congress debate begins on North America Union
Resolution calls for end of NAFTA superhighway, abandonment of integration with Canada, Mexico
By Jerome R. Corsi - WorldNetDaily.com - September 25, 2007
House resolution urging President Bush "not to go forward with the North American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is – according to its sponsor Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in an exclusive WND interview – "also a message to both the executive branch and the legislative branch."
As WND previously reported, on Jan. 22 Goode introduced H.C.R. 40, titled "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.
"Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer."
How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP could turn into the North American Union as "conspiracy theorists"?
"The president is really engaging in a play on words," Goode responded. "The secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee," he explained, "and I had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, she answered, 'There's no NAFTA Superhighway.' But then Mary Peters proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go through the United States up into Canada."
Goode is a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development of the House Committee on Appropriations.
"So, I think that saying we're 'conspiracy theorists' or something like that is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition," Goode concluded.
Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional government and a NAFTA Superhighway system: "The Bush administration as well as Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into the United States and then in onto Canada," Goode confirmed.
The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from global trade, especially moving production to China.
"Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins," he argued.
"I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country," Goode continued. "The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S. trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration."
As WND reported, the Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck "demonstration project" under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their long-haul rigs throughout the U.S.
Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.
WND reported last month that Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from spending any federal funds to implement the truck project.
Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed her vote to support Dorgan.
By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable to Dorgan's, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement the truck project.
DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor carriers.
"With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas," Goode argued. "A lot of these Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of unloading at U.S. ports."
"So, when you look at the total package," he continued, "we do have a NAFTA Superhighway system already in place. There are those in all three countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty."
Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and telling their constituents that they don't know anything about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase our competitiveness?
"In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the transportation funding bill," Goode responded. "I commend Congressman Duncan Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
As WND reported, Hunter's amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Transportation funding bill prohibiting DOT from using federal funds to participate in SPP working groups creating NAFTA Superhighways passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. The House approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.
"So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP, would vote down on the SPP," Goode concluded. "But some still say, and it's a play on words, that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that will lead to a North American Union. I don't think they can say anymore that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further."
WND asked Goode to comment on the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, a group of multinational corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as the central adviser of SPP working groups.
At the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, the NACC met behind closed doors with the three leaders, cabinet secretaries who were present, and top SPP working group bureaucrats, while various public advocacy groups, environmental groups, labor unions – and the press – were excluded.
Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public?
"I wish they were," Goode responded. "If it is as the Bush administration says, 'We're not planning any North American Union,' then why wouldn’t those meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?" Goode asked.
"But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in here unchecked," he continued. "It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach. But if you can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that's going to be cheaper. And it's all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money the multi-national corporations are going to make."
Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate?
"I think so," Goode said. "That debate had a very positive effect. You had grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.
"The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these issues," Goode added. "Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through the Senate not once, but twice.
"The Bush administration claims it's not [amnesty] when you let someone stay in the country and give them a path to citizenship," Goode pointed out. "Well, that's their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the majority of the public. The majority of the public called in and buried the amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country."
So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP?
"Yes," Goode answered, "but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief executive that wouldn't do anything with it."
What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU, anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions?
"If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should have an impact on the House and the Senate," Goode said.
"President Bush's position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada," Goode explained. "Well, Bush's approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines the security and the safety of the country.
"It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and put the goods and material in a U.S. truck," he continued.
"The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to money," Goode stressed. "The multinational companies want their goods from Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor."
What about the U.S.'s large and growing trade imbalance with China?
"I don't want to have to be an 'I told you so' person," Goode answered, "but I was a vigorous opponent of PNTR ("permanent normal trade relations") and before that of 'most favored nation' trade status with China. We need tariffs and quotas with China. Personally, if I know food is coming in from China, I won't buy it. The American people with the adoption of COOL, country of origin labeling, with the food clearly labeled, I think you will see the American public will shy away from Chinese products."
In 2000, Congress voted to extend to China PNTR. "Most favored nation" or MFN trade status, was given to China first in 1980 by the Carter administration. COOL rules are administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Goode concluded the interview by thanking WND for covering the SPP, NAU and NAFTA Superhighway issues: "I want to thank you for putting these issues out where people can read it," Goode said. "You have enlightened hundreds of thousands if not millions of American citizens who otherwise would have been greatly in the dark on the SPP."
Monday, October 15, 2007
Interim Heads Increasingly Run Federal Agencies
By PHILIP SHENON - The New York Times - October 15, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — For now, the most powerful law enforcement official in the federal government is a 47-year-old lawyer little known outside Washington.
Henrietta H. Fore, a State Department under secretary who also leads an aid agency.
Or inside Washington, for that matter.
He is acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, who is running the Justice Department until a new attorney general is confirmed by the Senate to replace Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Keisler had been in charge of the department’s civil division.
The No. 2 and No. 3 officials are also acting — Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford and Associate Attorney General Gregory G. Katsas. More than a quarter of the department’s 93 United States attorneys around the country are “acting.”
At the top of the Department of Homeland Security, there is an acting general counsel, acting under secretary for national protection and acting assistant secretary for strategic plans. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the $600 billion-a-year Medicare and Medicaid programs have had an acting administrator since last fall.
Scholars and other researchers who study the federal bureaucracy say the situation in those agencies is becoming increasingly common elsewhere in the Bush administration.
With only 15 months left in office, President Bush has left whole agencies of the executive branch to be run largely by acting or interim appointees — jobs that would normally be filled by people whose nominations would have been reviewed and confirmed by the Senate. In many cases, there is no obvious sign of movement at the White House to find permanent nominees, suggesting that many important jobs will not be filled by Senate-confirmed officials for the remainder of the Bush administration. That would effectively circumvent the Senate’s right to review and approve the appointments. It also means that the jobs are filled by people who do not have the clout to make decisions that comes with a permanent appointment endorsed by the Senate, scholars say.
While exact comparisons are difficult to come by, researchers say the vacancy rate for senior jobs in the executive branch is far higher at the end of the Bush administration than it was at the same point in the terms of Mr. Bush’s recent predecessors in the White House.
The White House insists that when vacancies have occurred in executive branch agencies, it has filled them with talented acting replacements, often with the same officials who have been nominated — but not yet confirmed — for those jobs by the Democratic-controlled Senate.
“We have capable people in place to provide leadership,” said Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman. “We encourage members of the Senate to confirm the nominees we’ve already sent to the Hill as soon as possible.”
Under a 1998 law known as the Vacancies Reform Act, acting government officials can remain in their posts for 210 days with the full legal authority they would otherwise have with Senate confirmation, with the calendar reset to 210 days once a nominee’s name has been forwarded to the Senate. As of Monday, there are 462 days left in Mr. Bush’s term.
The president also has authority under the Constitution to make so-called recess appointments to senior jobs when the Senate is out of session — authority that Mr. Bush has invoked far more often than his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton.
But recess appointments often subject the White House to criticism that it is trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. And since there is relatively little time left in the Bush administration, there may be less pressure, or need, to consider them.
“You’ve got more vacancies now than a hotel in hurricane season,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University and one of the nation’s best-known specialists on the federal bureaucracy. “In my 25 years of studying these issues, I’ve never seen a vacancy rate like this.”
Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who studies the federal appointment process, said that he believed the large number of vacancies reflected a widespread fear by Republicans that the next president, whoever it is, will be a Democrat, and that there is no job security at the top ranks of the executive branch.
“Republicans don’t have as much incentive to give up lucrative jobs in the private sector right now,” Professor Gerhardt said.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “In the long history of the country, I don’t think the Justice Department has been in such disarray.” He said the many vacancies at the department helped explain why there was turmoil. “You have top spots unconfirmed: unconfirmed attorney general, unconfirmed deputy, unconfirmed associate,” he said. “You took a look at the organizational chart, there are many others who are unconfirmed among the assistant attorneys general ranks.”
The vacancies include three members of the cabinet. There are currently three acting cabinet members, including Mr. Keisler. The Senate Judiciary Committee is weighing Mr. Bush’s nomination of Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge, to replace Mr. Gonzales as attorney general, and has scheduled a confirmation hearing for Wednesday.
But the White House has so far failed to provide the Senate with the names of nominees for the other two cabinet jobs, and veterans affairs secretary, which are now being filled by officials placed there temporarily by Mr. Bush.
In the case of the Veterans Affairs Department, the White House has had months to find a nominee. The department’s last secretary, Jim Nicholson, announced in July that he would be stepping down.
The Office of Personnel Management, the government agency that oversees hiring and firing of federal employees, says it does not maintain records that would allow comparisons between the vacancy rates for senior government jobs under Mr. Bush and under his predecessors at this late point in their terms.
Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Dept.
Under federal disclosure laws, executive branch agencies are supposed to report vacancies among top jobs to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative agency that is part of Congress. But a spokesman there said its database was not necessarily up to date and also did not offer comparisons from one administration to the next.
Professor Light said it was not surprising for the number of vacancies in senior government posts to grow near the end of a president’s term, when political appointees seek work outside government and it becomes more difficult to recruit candidates for what may be short-term jobs.
But he said the situation in the final months of the Bush administration was dire. Since Mr. Bush may well be replaced by a Democrat who would almost certainly want a wholesale turnover of political appointments, the vacancies could continue well into 2009 at many cabinet departments and other agencies, Professor Light said.
He said the problems of having so many acting senior government officials were obvious: “One of the things we know is that they just aren’t as effective as Senate-confirmed appointees. They just don’t have the standing in their agencies. Acting people are very shy about making decisions.”The situation is more serious at some federal agencies than others. At some cabinet departments, including the Defense Department, virtually all senior officials have Senate confirmation.
Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, said the department had already identified nominees for all of its senior vacancies and was hopeful that they would be filled soon by Senate-confirmed officials.
Elsewhere in the government, the vacancies are numerous, with little expectation that they will be filled soon by candidates who have been approved in the Senate.
At the State Department, the job of under secretary for arms control and international security has been vacant for most of the past year. Mr. Bush announced the appointment of an acting under secretary late last month.
Henrietta H. Fore, the under secretary of state for management, has been doing double duty since spring, also serving as acting director of the United States Agency for International Development, the government’s foreign aid agency; the last occupant of the Usaid job resigned after he was identified as a customer of a Washington prostitution ring.
No cabinet agency has been hit harder by vacancies in senior posts than the Justice Department.
Its ranks have been depleted in recent months, which may be a reflection in part of the controversies that engulfed the department under Mr. Gonzales, especially the furor over the firing last year of several United States attorneys for what appear to have been political reasons.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the department, said, “We are confident in the individuals who are leading their respective offices in an acting capacity; these are veteran department lawyers with significant experience.”
The heads of the department’s civil rights, natural resources and tax divisions are all acting, as are the directors of the elite Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy.
The acting head of the counsel’s office, Steven G. Bradbury, who functions as the department’s lawyer, has found himself under scrutiny with the disclosure last week that he was the author of a pair of secret legal opinions that endorsed severe interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects in the custody of the C.I.A.
The acting attorney general, Mr. Keisler, has relatively little experience in criminal prosecutions.
He has worked in the department’s civil division since 2002 and, before that, had spent most of his career in private practice in Washington or as a law clerk. He may be best known in Washington legal circles as a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society.
Read more in the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — For now, the most powerful law enforcement official in the federal government is a 47-year-old lawyer little known outside Washington.
Henrietta H. Fore, a State Department under secretary who also leads an aid agency.
Or inside Washington, for that matter.
He is acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, who is running the Justice Department until a new attorney general is confirmed by the Senate to replace Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Keisler had been in charge of the department’s civil division.
The No. 2 and No. 3 officials are also acting — Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford and Associate Attorney General Gregory G. Katsas. More than a quarter of the department’s 93 United States attorneys around the country are “acting.”
At the top of the Department of Homeland Security, there is an acting general counsel, acting under secretary for national protection and acting assistant secretary for strategic plans. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the $600 billion-a-year Medicare and Medicaid programs have had an acting administrator since last fall.
Scholars and other researchers who study the federal bureaucracy say the situation in those agencies is becoming increasingly common elsewhere in the Bush administration.
With only 15 months left in office, President Bush has left whole agencies of the executive branch to be run largely by acting or interim appointees — jobs that would normally be filled by people whose nominations would have been reviewed and confirmed by the Senate. In many cases, there is no obvious sign of movement at the White House to find permanent nominees, suggesting that many important jobs will not be filled by Senate-confirmed officials for the remainder of the Bush administration. That would effectively circumvent the Senate’s right to review and approve the appointments. It also means that the jobs are filled by people who do not have the clout to make decisions that comes with a permanent appointment endorsed by the Senate, scholars say.
While exact comparisons are difficult to come by, researchers say the vacancy rate for senior jobs in the executive branch is far higher at the end of the Bush administration than it was at the same point in the terms of Mr. Bush’s recent predecessors in the White House.
The White House insists that when vacancies have occurred in executive branch agencies, it has filled them with talented acting replacements, often with the same officials who have been nominated — but not yet confirmed — for those jobs by the Democratic-controlled Senate.
“We have capable people in place to provide leadership,” said Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman. “We encourage members of the Senate to confirm the nominees we’ve already sent to the Hill as soon as possible.”
Under a 1998 law known as the Vacancies Reform Act, acting government officials can remain in their posts for 210 days with the full legal authority they would otherwise have with Senate confirmation, with the calendar reset to 210 days once a nominee’s name has been forwarded to the Senate. As of Monday, there are 462 days left in Mr. Bush’s term.
The president also has authority under the Constitution to make so-called recess appointments to senior jobs when the Senate is out of session — authority that Mr. Bush has invoked far more often than his immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton.
But recess appointments often subject the White House to criticism that it is trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. And since there is relatively little time left in the Bush administration, there may be less pressure, or need, to consider them.
“You’ve got more vacancies now than a hotel in hurricane season,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University and one of the nation’s best-known specialists on the federal bureaucracy. “In my 25 years of studying these issues, I’ve never seen a vacancy rate like this.”
Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who studies the federal appointment process, said that he believed the large number of vacancies reflected a widespread fear by Republicans that the next president, whoever it is, will be a Democrat, and that there is no job security at the top ranks of the executive branch.
“Republicans don’t have as much incentive to give up lucrative jobs in the private sector right now,” Professor Gerhardt said.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “In the long history of the country, I don’t think the Justice Department has been in such disarray.” He said the many vacancies at the department helped explain why there was turmoil. “You have top spots unconfirmed: unconfirmed attorney general, unconfirmed deputy, unconfirmed associate,” he said. “You took a look at the organizational chart, there are many others who are unconfirmed among the assistant attorneys general ranks.”
The vacancies include three members of the cabinet. There are currently three acting cabinet members, including Mr. Keisler. The Senate Judiciary Committee is weighing Mr. Bush’s nomination of Michael B. Mukasey, a retired federal judge, to replace Mr. Gonzales as attorney general, and has scheduled a confirmation hearing for Wednesday.
But the White House has so far failed to provide the Senate with the names of nominees for the other two cabinet jobs, and veterans affairs secretary, which are now being filled by officials placed there temporarily by Mr. Bush.
In the case of the Veterans Affairs Department, the White House has had months to find a nominee. The department’s last secretary, Jim Nicholson, announced in July that he would be stepping down.
The Office of Personnel Management, the government agency that oversees hiring and firing of federal employees, says it does not maintain records that would allow comparisons between the vacancy rates for senior government jobs under Mr. Bush and under his predecessors at this late point in their terms.
Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Dept.
Under federal disclosure laws, executive branch agencies are supposed to report vacancies among top jobs to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative agency that is part of Congress. But a spokesman there said its database was not necessarily up to date and also did not offer comparisons from one administration to the next.
Professor Light said it was not surprising for the number of vacancies in senior government posts to grow near the end of a president’s term, when political appointees seek work outside government and it becomes more difficult to recruit candidates for what may be short-term jobs.
But he said the situation in the final months of the Bush administration was dire. Since Mr. Bush may well be replaced by a Democrat who would almost certainly want a wholesale turnover of political appointments, the vacancies could continue well into 2009 at many cabinet departments and other agencies, Professor Light said.
He said the problems of having so many acting senior government officials were obvious: “One of the things we know is that they just aren’t as effective as Senate-confirmed appointees. They just don’t have the standing in their agencies. Acting people are very shy about making decisions.”The situation is more serious at some federal agencies than others. At some cabinet departments, including the Defense Department, virtually all senior officials have Senate confirmation.
Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, said the department had already identified nominees for all of its senior vacancies and was hopeful that they would be filled soon by Senate-confirmed officials.
Elsewhere in the government, the vacancies are numerous, with little expectation that they will be filled soon by candidates who have been approved in the Senate.
At the State Department, the job of under secretary for arms control and international security has been vacant for most of the past year. Mr. Bush announced the appointment of an acting under secretary late last month.
Henrietta H. Fore, the under secretary of state for management, has been doing double duty since spring, also serving as acting director of the United States Agency for International Development, the government’s foreign aid agency; the last occupant of the Usaid job resigned after he was identified as a customer of a Washington prostitution ring.
No cabinet agency has been hit harder by vacancies in senior posts than the Justice Department.
Its ranks have been depleted in recent months, which may be a reflection in part of the controversies that engulfed the department under Mr. Gonzales, especially the furor over the firing last year of several United States attorneys for what appear to have been political reasons.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the department, said, “We are confident in the individuals who are leading their respective offices in an acting capacity; these are veteran department lawyers with significant experience.”
The heads of the department’s civil rights, natural resources and tax divisions are all acting, as are the directors of the elite Office of Legal Counsel and the Office of Legal Policy.
The acting head of the counsel’s office, Steven G. Bradbury, who functions as the department’s lawyer, has found himself under scrutiny with the disclosure last week that he was the author of a pair of secret legal opinions that endorsed severe interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects in the custody of the C.I.A.
The acting attorney general, Mr. Keisler, has relatively little experience in criminal prosecutions.
He has worked in the department’s civil division since 2002 and, before that, had spent most of his career in private practice in Washington or as a law clerk. He may be best known in Washington legal circles as a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society.
Read more in the New York Times
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Dallas and Denton drinking water at risk by TxDOT's route choice for FM 2499
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Oct. 7, 2007
(This diary is about TxDOT's selection of the most costly, most environmentally dangerous route for FM2499. FM 2499 runs through Denton County connecting with I35 (prospective route of Trans Texas Corridor. The route selected crosses emergent federal wetlands, three forks of Lake Lewisville which provides drinking water to Dallas and Denton Counties).
Crossposted on Texas Kaos.
Letter from Highland Village Parents Group to Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert:
Susie Venable's letter points out that:
* TxDOT selected the most EXPENSIVE ROUTE
* It will cost two times more to build Section 4 of FM2499 on the selected route than it would on any of the other 7 alternate routes.
*This route is the only one that threatens the drinking water of Dallas and Denton counties.
* The EPA and TxDOT and US Army Corp of Engineers and NCTCOG have all failed to ensure the safety of human beings.
* The environmental assessment is inadequate. They did not assess the impact of the route on human health.
The real "topper", in my estimation, is that TxDOT claims that this route was chosen "because of local demand!" Gee! Over 3000 citizens from a SMALL TOWN showed up at hearings in 2003 to protest this route. The fire marshal closed the meeting and turned hundreds away. TxDOT held the overflow meeting at UNT to have enough space. Susie said when she signed up to speak she was told over 900 people had already signed in before her!
Yet a few elected officials recommended this route! Some of them have been voted out of office, yet this route moves forward and TxDOT is prepared to open bidding for it on Nov. 1st.
This is not how the process should work! This illustrates how broken and unresponsive the system is to citizens' input, wishes, best interest.
I don't know who owns undeveloped land along this path. There are probably some decision makers with conflicts of interest. However, because TxDOT refuses to cooperate with compliance with the Texas Local Government Disclosure laws, it is difficult to determine which local officials who recommended this project will benefit or have close associates who will benefit financially by the selection of this VERY EXPENSIVE boondoggle!
It is appalling that the Dallas City and County Commission is sleeping through this route selection.
They should be PRINCIPALS in this -- following it closely to ensure that proper EIS is performed to protect their valuable drinking water. However, despite citizens attempts to engage them they are still asleep at the wheel.
This route will go up for bid in November! It will cost twice as much for them to build it on route alternate 3 (of 8) than on any of the other seven routes!
Gee. Wonder why they have money woes in the Texas Department of Transportation. They choose routes which are the most environmentally dangerous and double the cost of other alternate routes. They waste money on TV ads trying to get us to "like" toll roads and welcome the Trans Texas Corridor. They spend money on lobbyist to lobby the Federal Government. Gosh. Isn't that illegal. Somewhere in the crevices of my brain it seems there is something tucked away which says that governmental agencies are not supposed to spend tax payer money lobbying Congress. It amazes me that Ric Williamson and Speaker Jim Wright could come from the same place. Jim fought for the Constitution and Williamson runs the Texas Department of Transportation like it is the henchman of Attia the Hun! His rape and burn toll road policy threatens the very fabric of American life. They've told people that there is no way to build roads except tolls so long that some smart people have begun to believe it. Wait! Stop! Think! Examine the facts! There are better ways to do this.
Roads are supposed to serve the needs of people. The people who live near them are the ones who probably should have the greatest interest in them because they should serve their needs more frequently than those who live far away. However, TxDOT pays attention to out of state and out of the country parties more than they listen to the people in the neighborhood of the road project. Many project proceed more as Corporate Workfare project than as projects to serve the true transportation needs of the people of Texas.
That may explain it. Since the goal is probably to benefit contractors more than to serve the transportation needs of the citizens, it would make more sense to select the most costly route. That way there is double the pork to divvie out on this one project. However, they are ruining the integrity of a very nice neighborhood, endangering the health of millions of people in two counties, and endangering the health of over 1000 children who live within 1500 feet of the road.
Oh well. Too sad. No one is answering their phone who is really concerned about the health of people. The EA (done from an airplane) didn't note any endangered species. Wonder if they could see children from the air? They noted that their study did not assess the impact of the road on the health of human beings! Gee! Isn't that great? A handful of elected officials get to request that a route be fast tracked environmentally and the voices of over 3000 citizens is ignored.
What really irkes me is the excuse TxDOT gives for the selection of this route is "citizen demand"! 3000 citizens speaking out against it at public hearings didn't register. They only listened to a handful of elected officials (some of whom have already been voted out of office.)
Folks, we have to wake up and take note of the local races. It is county commissioners and city council members who carry the weight when it comes to recommending or stopping road projects. Toll roads have to be approved by the County Commission. Yet we sleep through these races.
For way too long the Democratic party has said that it was "focusing only on specific upticket races." In many cities and counties in Texas most of the local slots are filled by Republicans who ran unopposed!
Hank Gilbert is right. We have to ask EVERY CANDIDATE what his or her position is on toll roads and eminent domain. We have to challenge every pro toller in our towns and counties. We have to replace those who think it is o.k. for Texans to have to pay for every mile we drive on state highways.
Besides, when a political party fails to elect people to local offices, they create a world where there are no experienced candidates to run for higher offices. It is very difficult to recruit a strong state wide slate if we fail to fill City Commissions and County Commissions and County Judge slots with qualified Democrats.
Every Dallas County Commissioner, ever Dallas City Council Person should be looking into the ramifications of this route selection on the health of citzens of Dallas.
Denton County should too, but they are the ones who asked for it to be fast tracked and for the draft EIS to be set aside in favor of the shorter, less extensive, more inadequate Environmental Assessment.
(This diary is about TxDOT's selection of the most costly, most environmentally dangerous route for FM2499. FM 2499 runs through Denton County connecting with I35 (prospective route of Trans Texas Corridor. The route selected crosses emergent federal wetlands, three forks of Lake Lewisville which provides drinking water to Dallas and Denton Counties).
Crossposted on Texas Kaos.
Letter from Highland Village Parents Group to Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert:
Letter to Mayor of Dallas
Dear Mr. Leppert:
I am writing this letter to bring to your attention a matter of some grave concern.
Just this week, I contacted the Dallas Water Department to inquire about the extent of their knowledge and participation in matters pertaining to a major Dallas drinking water source. I foolishly presumed that the Water Department would be fully informed of activities that might potentially pollute this source. It came to my attention in 2003 that despite the events of 9/11, and the nation's terrorist concerns, there was very little inter-agency communication on matters that could potentially threaten resources and facilities of our local Cities.
I live in Highland Village, which is situated at the southern and western boundary of Lake Lewisville. This community has had an ongoing battle with regard to the proposed alignment of Section 4 of FM 2499, a 4 - 6 lane thoroughfare that Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) plans to run through our 96 percent owner-occupied residential community. Members of our community contacted the City of Dallas at that time, to ask them about their participation in the selection process for the alignment for this road, since Alignment 3, (there were originally 10) through Highland Village, was the only easement that would take this roadway over Lake Lewisville. We assumed the City would be involved since Dallas owns the water rights. They were not! With the huge outcry at the Public Hearings and considerable media coverage at that time, we presumed Dallas would get involved, especially as TxDot went ahead and selected Alternative 3 over other less controversial and less expensive routes for this road. They apparently did not!
This particular alignment, through our unique and massively "hilly" neighborhoods, through wetlands and over the western boundary of Lake Lewisville is very controversial! It is the most disruptive and THE MOST EXPENSIVE of all options which were available. The environmental threat from this road is huge - to human and wildlife (Lake Lewisville already has a high MTBE content according to EPA reports). Yet it somehow 'squeaked' inside the NEPA guidelines and was 'shoehorned' under the radar, to fit the need to move this project along. Leadership of Copper Canyon - the neighboring community which was the site for several of the other alternatives, fought this roadway from the very beginning. Leadership of Highland Village did not! That is what is amounted to. Despite the huge citizen opposition, despite being elevated above grade (up to 15 ft. in places), and less than 10 feet from some homes; despite the necessity to build bridges over emergent wetlands along the western boundary of Lake Lewisville - and potential threat to this drinking water source, the project received an assessment of "no significant impact" to the surrounding community, in late 2005. No formal Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was ever done. The conditions for the lesser study were also less than ideal. No ground assessment was ever done for the emergent wetlands evaluation portion, and all areas of promised mitigation to the community (for what they were worth) cannot be fulfilled because the City of Highland Village does not have authority over this State highway. And yet apparently, through all this, the City of Dallas stayed out of this process.
TxDot is preparing to put this construction project out to bids next month. Highland Village families continue to fight the project and have recently been talking to an environmental attorney, to seek advice on how we should move forward at this time. We had hoped to stop the process before now, or at a minimum force TxDot to complete a proper Environmental Impact Study (EIS). This especially in light of the recent USC Medical study published earlier this year in Lancet, implicating automobile pollution as a major source of loss of lung function in children, and more recently the reports about breast cancer from the same source. This agency appears to be determined to push forward with this project however, even with their recent acknowledgement of a $290 million deficit in state funds. We are therefore trying to get as many people involved as possible, in asking the right questions, so that they might reconsider the repercussions of their choices. I called the Dallas Water Department about 11 days ago to discuss this matter, and was instructed that Jodi Puckett, the Director, was out of the office. Earlier this week I received a call from Rick Galceron(sp?) in Ms. Pucket's stead. Mr. Galceron informed me that he was unaware of any participation or issues with regard to this or any other proposed highway crossing of Lake Lewisville. He told me he would make some calls to find out what he could, and then get back to me. I have heard no more to date, and therefore feel I should bring this matter to you Mr. Leppert, as the newly appointed Mayor of the City of Dallas. I felt you would wish to be informed of this and other matters of such importance. I realize I am a simple "lay-person" in this area, but I find the lack of apparent concern and cooperation in this matter to disturbing to the point of outrageous. We are after all talking about a potential threat to one of the City of Dallas' largest sources of potable water. A lack of inter-agency co-operation regarding a project of this scale, which has the potential of putting massive amounts of toxins into that source, is absurd. Mistakes are made and accidents happen. That no cooperation is believed necessary is shocking! Whatever happened to the requirements for stepped up security on such resources? Given the recent concerns not that long ago following the spill at Lake Tawakoni, one would have thought there would be more involvement and monitoring of these matters. I have to wonder whether the citizens of Dallas are aware of how little oversight is being given to their drinking water source. I would appreciate hearing from you at you earliest convenience in response to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Susie Venable
Concerned Parent/Citizen/Homeowner/Taxpayer
of Highland Village, Texas
Susie Venable's letter points out that:
* TxDOT selected the most EXPENSIVE ROUTE
* It will cost two times more to build Section 4 of FM2499 on the selected route than it would on any of the other 7 alternate routes.
*This route is the only one that threatens the drinking water of Dallas and Denton counties.
* The EPA and TxDOT and US Army Corp of Engineers and NCTCOG have all failed to ensure the safety of human beings.
* The environmental assessment is inadequate. They did not assess the impact of the route on human health.
The real "topper", in my estimation, is that TxDOT claims that this route was chosen "because of local demand!" Gee! Over 3000 citizens from a SMALL TOWN showed up at hearings in 2003 to protest this route. The fire marshal closed the meeting and turned hundreds away. TxDOT held the overflow meeting at UNT to have enough space. Susie said when she signed up to speak she was told over 900 people had already signed in before her!
Yet a few elected officials recommended this route! Some of them have been voted out of office, yet this route moves forward and TxDOT is prepared to open bidding for it on Nov. 1st.
This is not how the process should work! This illustrates how broken and unresponsive the system is to citizens' input, wishes, best interest.
I don't know who owns undeveloped land along this path. There are probably some decision makers with conflicts of interest. However, because TxDOT refuses to cooperate with compliance with the Texas Local Government Disclosure laws, it is difficult to determine which local officials who recommended this project will benefit or have close associates who will benefit financially by the selection of this VERY EXPENSIVE boondoggle!
It is appalling that the Dallas City and County Commission is sleeping through this route selection.
They should be PRINCIPALS in this -- following it closely to ensure that proper EIS is performed to protect their valuable drinking water. However, despite citizens attempts to engage them they are still asleep at the wheel.
This route will go up for bid in November! It will cost twice as much for them to build it on route alternate 3 (of 8) than on any of the other seven routes!
Gee. Wonder why they have money woes in the Texas Department of Transportation. They choose routes which are the most environmentally dangerous and double the cost of other alternate routes. They waste money on TV ads trying to get us to "like" toll roads and welcome the Trans Texas Corridor. They spend money on lobbyist to lobby the Federal Government. Gosh. Isn't that illegal. Somewhere in the crevices of my brain it seems there is something tucked away which says that governmental agencies are not supposed to spend tax payer money lobbying Congress. It amazes me that Ric Williamson and Speaker Jim Wright could come from the same place. Jim fought for the Constitution and Williamson runs the Texas Department of Transportation like it is the henchman of Attia the Hun! His rape and burn toll road policy threatens the very fabric of American life. They've told people that there is no way to build roads except tolls so long that some smart people have begun to believe it. Wait! Stop! Think! Examine the facts! There are better ways to do this.
Roads are supposed to serve the needs of people. The people who live near them are the ones who probably should have the greatest interest in them because they should serve their needs more frequently than those who live far away. However, TxDOT pays attention to out of state and out of the country parties more than they listen to the people in the neighborhood of the road project. Many project proceed more as Corporate Workfare project than as projects to serve the true transportation needs of the people of Texas.
That may explain it. Since the goal is probably to benefit contractors more than to serve the transportation needs of the citizens, it would make more sense to select the most costly route. That way there is double the pork to divvie out on this one project. However, they are ruining the integrity of a very nice neighborhood, endangering the health of millions of people in two counties, and endangering the health of over 1000 children who live within 1500 feet of the road.
Oh well. Too sad. No one is answering their phone who is really concerned about the health of people. The EA (done from an airplane) didn't note any endangered species. Wonder if they could see children from the air? They noted that their study did not assess the impact of the road on the health of human beings! Gee! Isn't that great? A handful of elected officials get to request that a route be fast tracked environmentally and the voices of over 3000 citizens is ignored.
What really irkes me is the excuse TxDOT gives for the selection of this route is "citizen demand"! 3000 citizens speaking out against it at public hearings didn't register. They only listened to a handful of elected officials (some of whom have already been voted out of office.)
Folks, we have to wake up and take note of the local races. It is county commissioners and city council members who carry the weight when it comes to recommending or stopping road projects. Toll roads have to be approved by the County Commission. Yet we sleep through these races.
For way too long the Democratic party has said that it was "focusing only on specific upticket races." In many cities and counties in Texas most of the local slots are filled by Republicans who ran unopposed!
Hank Gilbert is right. We have to ask EVERY CANDIDATE what his or her position is on toll roads and eminent domain. We have to challenge every pro toller in our towns and counties. We have to replace those who think it is o.k. for Texans to have to pay for every mile we drive on state highways.
Besides, when a political party fails to elect people to local offices, they create a world where there are no experienced candidates to run for higher offices. It is very difficult to recruit a strong state wide slate if we fail to fill City Commissions and County Commissions and County Judge slots with qualified Democrats.
Every Dallas County Commissioner, ever Dallas City Council Person should be looking into the ramifications of this route selection on the health of citzens of Dallas.
Denton County should too, but they are the ones who asked for it to be fast tracked and for the draft EIS to be set aside in favor of the shorter, less extensive, more inadequate Environmental Assessment.
Failed Electric Utility Policy in Texas
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Oct. 7, 2007
Utility deregulation was supposed to lower utility rates in Texas. Instead, Texans have seen rates escalate to 200%-300% since deregulation. A hodgepodge of policies on credit eligibility, credentials for eligibility for deposit waivers for the medical infirm or elderly complicates decision making for many citizens. KWw hour rates quoted by some providers do not always include all the fees charged for electric service. Consumers are penalized for falling below minimum usage amounts on many plans. Customers with poor credit are refused service by companies with the lowest rates.
Even when some Texans "shop around" and find up to "25% savings on rates", they report paying double and triple the amount they paid prior to deregulation. Yes, higher natural gas rates fuel some of the rate hikes. While utility rates have escalated, profits by utility companies have also escalated. Yet when some utility representatives discuss the floating price caps utilized as deregulation was phased in here in Texas, they speak of "losing money". Even though they have had increases in profit and revenue, they speak of the difference between what might have occurred if there had been no floating price caps to help ease in deregulation and the increased profits they made with the price caps as if they were a "loss of income" instead of referring to it more correctly as a difference in the level of increased profit/earnings!
In a news story in today's Houston Chronicle reporters Tom Fowler and Janet Elliott conclude that utility deregulation in Texas is a "failed waste of time" which "fails to slash electric bills."
"IT'S LIKE THERE IS A PENALTY FOR BEING A TEXAN WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR LIGHT BILL." Mike Coleman
MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITIES EXEMPT FROM DEREGULATION CHARGE LOWER RATES THAN DEREGULATED UTILITIES IN TEXAS
Tom Fowler and Janet Elliott illustrate this point with CPS Energy, a city-owned utility whih serves San Antonio. City owned utilities are exempt from deregulation. "
TEXAS HOMEOWNERS LESS SHIELDED FROM FLUCTUATIONS IN NATURAL GAS PRICES THAN RESIDENTS IN OTHER STATES:
But the very structure of Texas' deregulated market exposes customers to the full impact of rising natural gas prices more than in other states, or even in parts of Texas still served by regulated electric companies, municipally owned utilities or electric cooperatives.
Steve Bartley, CPS vice president of government and regulatory relations, told Flowler and Elliott that
HOW RATES WERE SET BEFORE DEREGULATION:
RATES UNDER DEREGULATION:
DEREGULATION DID NOT FORCE RATES DOWN WHEn NATURAL GAS PRICES FELL:
FLOATING PRICE CAPS PREVENTED SUDDEN RATE SHOCK YET UTILITY COMPANIES CLAIM THEY "LOST MONEY" DUE TO THE CAPS!:
Rebecca Klein, PUC chairwoman told Elliott and Fowler that from 2002 to '04, in Texas, floating price caps prevented the sudden rate shock that other states, including Illinois and Maryland, experienced when their price caps were lifted.
RATE COMPARISIONS
IN OTHER STATES:
MULTIPLE VIEWS OF THE "UPSIDE":
Proponents of Deregulation point out that the cost for construction of powerplants, under Deregulation, is passed to the stockholders. Critics fear that energy markets are more subject to price manipulation by private corporations delaying construction of necessary power faciities or keeping existing ones off line.
Competition is supposed to produce options and give consumers more choices. Critics point out that a variety of corporate policies among providors makes it more complicated for consumers to understand the options and make informed decisions.
In today's volatile energy market, consumers are granted discounts usually only when signing long-term contracts with their electric providor. Current PUC rules in Texas does not force providors to pass along savings to consumers when natural gas prices drop. In desperation, some cash strapped Texans feel forced into signing contracts with penalities for switching in order to get small discounts off their electric bills yet if natural gas prices drop more than the discount they are receiving, there are no laws to force the electric companies to pass some of the savings on to the oonsumer.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I personally experienced this last month. I was forced to move suddenly due to my apartment complex failing to meet city code standards. The complex where I lived had commercial rate metered service. My utility bill was paid to the complex each month and no credit history shows on my credit report for the six years I lived there. I entered into the world of "deregulated" utilities after six years of not dealing directly with utility companies. I used the PUC website. Those showing the best rates were inaccessible to me. They either required a utility history or did not serve this area. The remainder of companies were unable to connect the electricity on short notice. Only TXU could connect the service within three days.
I discoved that the rates set by most companies penalize customers who use less than 1000 Kww a month. Some penalize those who use less than 500 Kww a month. (My usage in my previous apartment ranged from 500 to 700 kww a month. I hoped to become more conservative.)
My order was placed online and I submitted information that I have medical life support equipment and am medically disabled on Social Security. I was astonished to learn that the waiver for the $250.00 deposit enacted by the Texas Legislature did not apply to me. Victims of domestic violence and people on Social Security over age 62 are granted waivers by most companies. However, only a few providors waive the deposit for medically diabled under retirement age. Improperly I assumed that certification by Social Security that I am medically disabled would be sufficient. No! TXU requires a letter from a physician stating that you cannot perform three or more daily tasks. They refuse to honor the more extensive medical review process by Social Security. What I found especially obscene by this requirement is that TXU requires persons who are deserving of financial assistance in the form of a waiver of the deposit who have already been certifed by a very extensive medical review process through the Social Security Disability Insurance department of the Federal Government to pay for a visit to a physician to get a letter to qualify them for a waiver of the deposit!
NOTICE FOR DISCONNECTION OF SERVICE TO THOSE ON LIFE SUPPORT IS INSUFFICIENT!
Another disconcerting tidbit I uncovered about TXU's policy regarding disconnection of service to persons with life support equipment is that, according to a TXU Customer Service rep, they are only required to notify the customer by US Mail of their intention of disconnecting service. Persons with life support equipment are not phoned or provided notices on the door prior to disconnection of service for a variety of reasons! It became obvious to me that there are more than a few "life threatening" issues which need to be addressed by the Texas Legislature regarding standardization of utility company administrative practices for the handicapped, elderly, or dependent on life support equipment!
Utility deregulation was supposed to lower utility rates in Texas. Instead, Texans have seen rates escalate to 200%-300% since deregulation. A hodgepodge of policies on credit eligibility, credentials for eligibility for deposit waivers for the medical infirm or elderly complicates decision making for many citizens. KWw hour rates quoted by some providers do not always include all the fees charged for electric service. Consumers are penalized for falling below minimum usage amounts on many plans. Customers with poor credit are refused service by companies with the lowest rates.
Even when some Texans "shop around" and find up to "25% savings on rates", they report paying double and triple the amount they paid prior to deregulation. Yes, higher natural gas rates fuel some of the rate hikes. While utility rates have escalated, profits by utility companies have also escalated. Yet when some utility representatives discuss the floating price caps utilized as deregulation was phased in here in Texas, they speak of "losing money". Even though they have had increases in profit and revenue, they speak of the difference between what might have occurred if there had been no floating price caps to help ease in deregulation and the increased profits they made with the price caps as if they were a "loss of income" instead of referring to it more correctly as a difference in the level of increased profit/earnings!
In a news story in today's Houston Chronicle reporters Tom Fowler and Janet Elliott conclude that utility deregulation in Texas is a "failed waste of time" which "fails to slash electric bills."
When Texas lawmakers agreed to open the state's power markets to competition back in 1999, one promise was on the tip of many tongues: lower prices.
"Competition in the electric industry will benefit Texans by reducing monthly rates and offering consumers more choices about the power theyuse," then-Gov. George W. Bush said at the time.
Then-state Sen. David Sibley, who was a key author of the bill, put the promise more bluntly:
"If all consumers don't benefit from this, we will have wasted our time and failed our constituency," he said.
Eight years later, many consumers are calling deregulation just that — a failed waste of time.
"IT'S LIKE THERE IS A PENALTY FOR BEING A TEXAN WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR LIGHT BILL." Mike Coleman
From 2000 to June of this year, the average electric rate in Texas rose 56 percent, more than in all but three states, according to the most recent federal figures.
...
MUNICIPAL OWNED UTILITIES EXEMPT FROM DEREGULATION CHARGE LOWER RATES THAN DEREGULATED UTILITIES IN TEXAS
Tom Fowler and Janet Elliott illustrate this point with CPS Energy, a city-owned utility whih serves San Antonio. City owned utilities are exempt from deregulation. "
San Antonians must buy their power from just one source: CPS.
Yet being exempt from deregulation has benefited CPS customers, who are paying less for electricity than residential customers in other big Texas cities.
The 25 percent of Texans living in regulated markets generally pay less than consumers in markets such as Houston that have been opened to competition.
For example, Houston residential consumers use an average of 1,130 kilowatt hours a month. Bills for that much power would range from $125.43 to $163.85 based on rates available in Houston at the end of September for a one-year, fixed-rate plan. The average rate in Houston would produce a monthly bill of $142.95.
The same amount of electricity would cost $94.40 from CPS in San Antonio and $105.32 in Austin, also served by a city-owned utility.--Elliott and Fowler
TEXAS HOMEOWNERS LESS SHIELDED FROM FLUCTUATIONS IN NATURAL GAS PRICES THAN RESIDENTS IN OTHER STATES:
But the very structure of Texas' deregulated market exposes customers to the full impact of rising natural gas prices more than in other states, or even in parts of Texas still served by regulated electric companies, municipally owned utilities or electric cooperatives.
Steve Bartley, CPS vice president of government and regulatory relations, told Flowler and Elliott that
CPS historically has had lower rates than investor-owned
utilities in Texas primarily because of the fuel mix it uses to generate electricity. It isn't as exposed to volatile natural gas prices.
"When bills go up, it's typically a function of natural gas prices, and it usually happens all over Texas," Bartley said. "Our bills don't rise as dramatically because we don't use as much natural gas."
HOW RATES WERE SET BEFORE DEREGULATION:
Before deregulation, a utility set prices based on the mix of power plants it used. If half the electricity came from gas-fired plants, one-quarter from nuclear power and one-quarter from coal, the rates would be based on a weighted average of their costs.
Any increase in rates had to be approved by the Texas Public Utility Commission. The process was often contentious and lengthy, but essentially utilities were guaranteed a profit of 11 percent over their operating costs.
The state's electric co-ops and city utilities still follow that model. For example, Austin limits profit to 9 percent, which goes toward other city services.--Fowler and Elloitt
RATES UNDER DEREGULATION:
In parts of the state opened to competition, however, retail electric entities that sell directly to customers don't own their own generating plants and must buy power in the wholesale market.--Fowler and Elloitt
DEREGULATION DID NOT FORCE RATES DOWN WHEn NATURAL GAS PRICES FELL:
Because consumer deregulation was phased in from 2002 through Jan. 1 of this year, some price controls were still in place when gas surged in 2005. The controls allowed electric rate caps to rise when natural gas costs increased, but the PUC said the law did not allow it to force rates down when gas prices fell.--Fowler and Elliott
FLOATING PRICE CAPS PREVENTED SUDDEN RATE SHOCK YET UTILITY COMPANIES CLAIM THEY "LOST MONEY" DUE TO THE CAPS!:
Rebecca Klein, PUC chairwoman told Elliott and Fowler that from 2002 to '04, in Texas, floating price caps prevented the sudden rate shock that other states, including Illinois and Maryland, experienced when their price caps were lifted.
"We've been able to successfully and completely lift price caps without the tumult that other states have had," she said.
Under pressure from lawmakers, the largest retailers, including Reliant and TXU Energy, raised rates more slowly than the law allowed. Fowler and Elliott wrote: TXU estimates it lost about $40 million during 2006 as a result, and Reliant estimates it lost about $120 million.
But electric rates still reached record levels by summer 2006.--Fowler and Elloitt
RATE COMPARISIONS
For the majority of customers in the Houston area who remained on Reliant's base plan that summer, the rate was 16.3 cents per kilowatt hour, up 89 percent from July 2002. In Dallas, TXU customers still on that company's base plan were paying as much as 15.3 cents, an 82 percent increase from 2002.
The rate picture has improved since the highs of 2006, helped mainly by natural gas prices that have stayed below $9 since the 2005 hurricane season.--Fowler and Elloitt
IN OTHER STATES:
Other states have seen rate increases, but most have been smaller than in Texas. And many states have instituted price caps that limit what consumers pay or have taken other action to lessen the pain.
Illinois had price caps in place from 1996 until lifting them in January, after which the state experienced double-digit rate increases in just a few months. The Legislature there just approved $1 billion in residential and business rebates.
Virginia re-regulated parts of its market in response to backlash against price increases that followed when caps were lifted..--Fowler and Elloitt
MULTIPLE VIEWS OF THE "UPSIDE":
Proponents of Deregulation point out that the cost for construction of powerplants, under Deregulation, is passed to the stockholders. Critics fear that energy markets are more subject to price manipulation by private corporations delaying construction of necessary power faciities or keeping existing ones off line.
Competition is supposed to produce options and give consumers more choices. Critics point out that a variety of corporate policies among providors makes it more complicated for consumers to understand the options and make informed decisions.
In today's volatile energy market, consumers are granted discounts usually only when signing long-term contracts with their electric providor. Current PUC rules in Texas does not force providors to pass along savings to consumers when natural gas prices drop. In desperation, some cash strapped Texans feel forced into signing contracts with penalities for switching in order to get small discounts off their electric bills yet if natural gas prices drop more than the discount they are receiving, there are no laws to force the electric companies to pass some of the savings on to the oonsumer.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
I personally experienced this last month. I was forced to move suddenly due to my apartment complex failing to meet city code standards. The complex where I lived had commercial rate metered service. My utility bill was paid to the complex each month and no credit history shows on my credit report for the six years I lived there. I entered into the world of "deregulated" utilities after six years of not dealing directly with utility companies. I used the PUC website. Those showing the best rates were inaccessible to me. They either required a utility history or did not serve this area. The remainder of companies were unable to connect the electricity on short notice. Only TXU could connect the service within three days.
I discoved that the rates set by most companies penalize customers who use less than 1000 Kww a month. Some penalize those who use less than 500 Kww a month. (My usage in my previous apartment ranged from 500 to 700 kww a month. I hoped to become more conservative.)
My order was placed online and I submitted information that I have medical life support equipment and am medically disabled on Social Security. I was astonished to learn that the waiver for the $250.00 deposit enacted by the Texas Legislature did not apply to me. Victims of domestic violence and people on Social Security over age 62 are granted waivers by most companies. However, only a few providors waive the deposit for medically diabled under retirement age. Improperly I assumed that certification by Social Security that I am medically disabled would be sufficient. No! TXU requires a letter from a physician stating that you cannot perform three or more daily tasks. They refuse to honor the more extensive medical review process by Social Security. What I found especially obscene by this requirement is that TXU requires persons who are deserving of financial assistance in the form of a waiver of the deposit who have already been certifed by a very extensive medical review process through the Social Security Disability Insurance department of the Federal Government to pay for a visit to a physician to get a letter to qualify them for a waiver of the deposit!
NOTICE FOR DISCONNECTION OF SERVICE TO THOSE ON LIFE SUPPORT IS INSUFFICIENT!
Another disconcerting tidbit I uncovered about TXU's policy regarding disconnection of service to persons with life support equipment is that, according to a TXU Customer Service rep, they are only required to notify the customer by US Mail of their intention of disconnecting service. Persons with life support equipment are not phoned or provided notices on the door prior to disconnection of service for a variety of reasons! It became obvious to me that there are more than a few "life threatening" issues which need to be addressed by the Texas Legislature regarding standardization of utility company administrative practices for the handicapped, elderly, or dependent on life support equipment!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Jimmie Vaughan Sings at Texas Independence Day Rally.
Jimmie Vaughan sings "Don't Want no Shackles on Me" at Texas Independence Day Rally (2007) at the State Capitol. Several thousand Texans from all over the state spoke out against the Trans Texas corridors, toll roads without voter referendum, mandatory animal id and exercise of eminent domaine for private gain. David Van Os and Hank Gilbert are seen in the background during most of the video. Hank Gilbert, T.U.R.F., the Eagle Forum, Corridor Watch, Texas Toll Party, San Antonio Toll Party and many farm and ranch groups organized this rally. The day before this rally over 900 Texans spoke out against the Trans Texas Corridor at the Senate Committee on Transportation.
Friday, September 28, 2007
MTBE - the saga continues
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - September 30, 2007
Dallas and Denton counties drinking water supply is threatened by the route selected by TxDOT for FM 2499. Despite over 3000 citizens objecting to the route at public meetings in 2003, TxDOT is scheduled to open bidding for Section 4 of FM2499 in October.
A Denton County Taskforce requested that this route be expedited. A draft EIS (Environmental Impact Study) was set aside for a much more brief, less extensive EA (Environmental Assessment). When the EA was performed, there was flooding in the region and arial assessment was substituted fon on the ground assessments. The EA (and TxDOT) refuses to consider the impact to human life in their EA.
Alarming levels of MTBE have already been found in Lake Lewisville. How it got there is unknown. Scientific evidence shows that water is contaminated by leaking gasoline tanks and gasoline spills. Many states have banned MTBE. Texas has not. Our gasoline still contains MTBE. Cars and trucks and tankers traveling over tributaries to the drinking water of millions of people heightens the risk of further MTBE contamination.
A brief search brings up more information than most of us care to know about MTBE.
Wikipedia describes MTBE:
PRODUCTION:
SOURCE:
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
CHARACTERISTICS OF MTBE
HEALTH RISK
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION
United States
The Environmental Working group differs from Wikipedia on the Energy Policy Act.
Wikipedia states:
The Environmental Working Group states:
Source:
More from Wikipedia:
...
SOURCE:
See also: What the Oil Companies Knew and When They Knew It by the Environmental Working Group.
Dallas and Denton counties drinking water supply is threatened by the route selected by TxDOT for FM 2499. Despite over 3000 citizens objecting to the route at public meetings in 2003, TxDOT is scheduled to open bidding for Section 4 of FM2499 in October.
A Denton County Taskforce requested that this route be expedited. A draft EIS (Environmental Impact Study) was set aside for a much more brief, less extensive EA (Environmental Assessment). When the EA was performed, there was flooding in the region and arial assessment was substituted fon on the ground assessments. The EA (and TxDOT) refuses to consider the impact to human life in their EA.
Alarming levels of MTBE have already been found in Lake Lewisville. How it got there is unknown. Scientific evidence shows that water is contaminated by leaking gasoline tanks and gasoline spills. Many states have banned MTBE. Texas has not. Our gasoline still contains MTBE. Cars and trucks and tankers traveling over tributaries to the drinking water of millions of people heightens the risk of further MTBE contamination.
A brief search brings up more information than most of us care to know about MTBE.
Wikipedia describes MTBE:
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is a chemical compound with molecular formula C5H12O. MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. MTBE has a minty odour vaguely reminiscent of diethyl ether, leading to unpleasant taste and odour in water. MTBE is a gasoline additive, used as an oxygenate and to raise the octane number, although its use has declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns. It has been found to easily pollute large quantities of groundwater when gasoline with MTBE is spilled or leaked at gas stations. MTBE is also used in organic chemistry as a relatively inexpensive solvent with properties comparable to diethyl ether but with a higher boiling point and lower solubility in water. It is also used medically to dissolve gallstones.
PRODUCTION:
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is a chemical compound with molecular formula C5H12O. MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. MTBE has a minty odour vaguely reminiscent of diethyl ether, leading to unpleasant taste and odour in water. MTBE is a gasoline additive, used as an oxygenate and to raise the octane number, although its use has declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns. It has been found to easily pollute large quantities of groundwater when gasoline with MTBE is spilled or leaked at gas stations. MTBE is also used in organic chemistry as a relatively inexpensive solvent with properties comparable to diethyl ether but with a higher boiling point and lower solubility in water. It is also used medically to dissolve gallstones.
SOURCE:
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a United States federal law passed by the U.S. Congress on December 16, 1974. It is the main federal law that ensures safe drinking water for Americans. With this act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is allowed to set the standards for drinking water quality and oversees all of the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these standards.
SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States. There are currently more than 160,000 public water systems providing water to almost all Americans at some time in their lives...
Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons. It is produced from natural gas, which is less expensive than oil.
Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by the United States Congress in Clean Air Act amendments; however, since 1999, in California and other locations MTBE has begun to be phased out because of groundwater contamination (California Air Resources Board, 2004). Due to its higher solubility in water MTBE moves more quickly than other fuel components (California Air Resources Board, 2004). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 reduces the federal requirement for oxygen content in reformulated gasoline.
In 1995 high levels of MTBE were unexpectedly discovered in the water wells of Santa Monica, California, and the U.S. Geological Survey reported detections.[3] Subsequent U.S. findings indicate tens of thousands of contaminated sites in water wells distributed across the country. As per toxicity alone, MTBE is not classified as a hazard for the environment. The maximum contaminant level of MTBE in drinking water has not yet been established by the EPA. The leakage problem is partially attributed to the lack of effective regulations for underground storage tanks, but spillage from overfilling remains an important upset scenario. As an ingredient in unleaded gasoline, MTBE is the most soluble part. When dissolved in groundwater, MTBE will lead the contaminant plume with the remaining components such as benzene, toluene, etc. to follow. Thus the discovery of MTBE in public groundwater wells indicates that the contaminant source was a gasoline release. The MTBE concentrations used in the EU (usually 1.0–1.6%) and allowed (maximum 5%) in Europe are lower than in California.[4
CHARACTERISTICS OF MTBE
The high solubility and persistence of MTBE cause it to travel faster and farther than many other gasoline components when released into an aquifer. It is also released whenever gasoline with MTBE is spilled on the ground. Because it is so water soluble, it easily moves through soil, polluting both surface and groundwater.
MTBE has widespread occurrences in the aquifers of North America, where the majority of groundwater chemistry data has been acquired. As one regional example, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board has indicated MTBE is one of the groundwater pollutants of most widespread concern in this major metropolitan region of the USA.
HEALTH RISK
The IARC, a cancer research agency of the World Health Organization, maintains MTBE is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. However, exposure to large doses of MTBE has significant non-cancer-related health risks. MTBE ruins the taste of water at concentrations of 5 – 15 µg/l[9] so that significant concentrations of MTBE in drinking water are detectable.
MTBE is not classified as a human carcinogen in low exposure levels by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, it has been shown to cause kidney lesions in animals. As an ether, MTBE acts as an emulsifier, increasing the solubility of other, harmful components of gasoline (for example, the known carcinogen benzene). It thus may increase the risk of contamination by other compounds. MTBE is biodegraded very slowly, remaining in water for decades or more. In addition some MTBE degrades in blood to the associated alcohol, tert-butanol, with a greatly increased residence time. The prolonged presence of this alcohol derivative is not fully understood.
Some industry advocates of MTBE contend that it has little provable effect on humans, although its manufacturers did not test it for its effects on human health before introducing it as an additive. As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects from ingestion of MTBE. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are not adequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION
United States
Because MTBE is so highly soluble in water, it is very difficult to clean up. Estimates of the cost of removing MTBE from groundwater and soil contamination range from $1[12] to $30[13]billion, including removing the compound from aquifers and municipal water supplies and replacing leaky underground oil tanks. Some controversy centers on who will pay the costs of this remediation. In one case, the cost to oil companies to clean up the MTBE in wells belonging to Santa Monica is estimated to exceed $200 million.[14]
Recent state laws have been passed to ban MTBE in certain areas. California and New York, which together accounted for 40% of U.S. MTBE consumption, banned the chemical starting January 1, 2004, and as of September, 2005, twenty-five states had signed legislation banning MTBE. (A table of state by state information, as of 2002, is available at the United States Department of Energy website.[15]
In 2000, the U.S. EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. Upon taking office, the Bush administration cancelled those plans.
In April of 2002, a California jury found several oil companies guilty of irresponsibly manufacturing and distributing MTBE, stating that the companies acted with malice in failing to warn customers about the dangers of MTBE contamination. As of fall 2006, hundreds of other lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies. Most of these lawsuits have been consolidated into "multi-district litigation" before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York.
The Environmental Working group differs from Wikipedia on the Energy Policy Act.
Wikipedia states:
The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the House on April 21, 2005, did not include a provision for shielding MTBE manufacturers from water contamination lawsuits. This provision was first proposed in 2003 and had been thought by some to be a priority of Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill did include a provision that gives MTBE makers, including some major oil companies, $2 billion in transition assistance as MTBE is phased out over the next nine years. Due to opposition in the Senate, the conference report dropped all MTBE provisions. The final bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush. The lack of MTBE liability protection is resulting in a switchover to the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive, which is in limited supply in April 2006. Some traders and consumer advocates are blaming this for an increase in gasoline prices.
The Environmental Working Group states:
The House Republican leadership is considering legislation to strictly limit oil company liability for contaminating groundwater in at least 28 states with the toxic gasoline additive MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. The oil industry and its friends in Congress say it's only fair to shield MTBE makers from lawsuits, since, they claim, it was the government that mandated oil companies to reformulate gas with MTBE in the first place, to clean the air.
The liability waiver is a top priority for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Energy and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton, both of Texas, home of most the oil and chemical companies that produced MTBE until contamination problems prompted California and 16 other states to ban it. The waiver, included in a draft of the energy bill from Barton's committee, would prohibit lawsuits charging that the additive was a faulty product that the industry knew would leak from storage tanks and contaminate water supplies — the exact argument two California communities used in court to win multimillion-dollar settlements to clean up the contamination and secure new supplies. The bill not only closes the door to new defective-product lawsuits, but throws out of court all cases filed since Sept. 5, 2003. The bill bans MTBE nationwide in 2014, but in the interim gives the chemical's manufacturers $250 million a year — $2 billion total — in "transition assistance grants" to convert their facilities to other products.
Recently, evidence has surfaced that a decade ago, House Commerce Committee lawyers told members that using MTBE was the industry's choice, not the Environmental Protection Agency's requirement. A June 5, 1995 memo from staff counsel to a Commerce Committee subcommittee that included Barton explained that the EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Program (RFG) did not mandate or favor MTBE (made from methanol) over any other oxygenate that could be used to reformulate gasoline:
...
Following release of the memo by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, a spokesman for Barton said the congressman still believes that oil companies were forced to produce MTBE when the federal government required the development of additives that make gasoline burn more cleanly.
But a different story emerges from internal industry documents and depositions, made public in recent successful lawsuits brought by cities and a California public inerest group called Communities for a Better Environment that want oil companies to pay to clean up water made undrinkable and unhealthy by MTBE. The documents, provided to EWG by CBE's lawyers Scott Summy and Celeste Evangelisti, show that the oil industry itself lobbied hard for the MTBE mandate because they made the additive and stood to profit.
In a 1995 deposition, a top ARCO executive admitted under oath, "The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline...." He clarified that "the oil industry... brought this [MTBE] forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed."
By 1986, the oil industry was adding 54,000 barrels of MTBE to gasoline each day. By 1991, one year before the EPA requirements went into effect, the industry was using more than 100,000 barrels of MTBE per day in reformulated gasoline. [View document] Yet secret oil company studies, conducted at least as early as 1980, showed the industry knew that MTBE contaminated ground water virtually everywhere it was used.
Oil companies are pressing Congress for liability protection because hundreds of communities have serious MTBE contamination problems, and company documents are coming back to haunt them in the courtroom. In April, the documents convinced a California jury to find Shell, Texaco, Tosco, Lyondell Chemical (ARCO Chemical), and Equilon Enterprises liable for selling a defective product (gasoline with MTBE) while failing to warn of its pollution hazard, forcing a $60 million settlement with the water district for South Lake Tahoe.
Source:
More from Wikipedia:
Certain patents important in the manufacture of MTBE are not held by American companies; for example, United States patent 5536886, Process for preparing alkyl ethers,[20] is owned by the Finnish company Neste. The same corporation also went on to patent the replacement of the MTBE process, an octane production process trademarked NExOCTANE.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently lists methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a candidate for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water. MCL's are determined by the EPA using toxicity data.
The SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may cause adverse public health effects. The regulations include both mandatory levels (Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) and nonenforceable health goals (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, or MCLGs) for each included contaminant. MCLGs have extra significance because they can be used under Superfund as Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in NPL cleanups.
The 1986 SDWA amendments required EPA to apply future NPDWRs to both community and non-transient non-community water systems when it evaluated and revised current regulations. The first case in which this was applied was the final rule on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25690). At that time NPDWRs were promulgated for certain synthetic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and applied to non-transient non-community water systems as well as community water systems. This rulemaking also clarified that non-transient non-community water systems were not subject to MCLs that were promulgated before July 8, 1987.
...
Public Information and Consultation: SDWA emphasizes that consumers have a right to know what is in their drinking water, where it comes from, how it is treated, and how to help protect it. US EPA distributes public information materials (through its Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Safewater web site, and Water Resource Center) and holds public meetings, working with states, tribes, water systems, and environmental and civic groups, to encourage public involvement.
SOURCE:
See also: What the Oil Companies Knew and When They Knew It by the Environmental Working Group.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Editorial: Campaign money should pay for Gov. Perry's New padBy
By Phillip Martin - Burnt Orange Report - Sept. 26, 2007
Millionaires gave a third of all money raised for '06 state races - Candidates raises a total of $157.6 million
By R.G. RATCLIFFE - Houston Chronicle - Sept. 26, 2007
AUSTIN — Candidates for Texas' legislative and major statewide offices collected almost $158 million in campaign funds during the 2006 election cycle, according to a study released today by Texans for Public Justice.
That total is the equivalent of the annual average wage of more than 3,800 Texas workers.
But TPJ found there is little average about some of the donors to Texas politicians. Almost a third of all the money raised — $52 million — came from 141 millionaires who donated $100,000 or more each.
"Average people don't have much of a voice in the system," said TPJ Director Craig McDonald. "The role of the small donor is almost nonexistent.
Texans for Public Justice is a campaign finance reform advocacy group that supports limits on contributions to candidates and aggregate limits on money given by individual donors. Both concepts are generally opposed by Republicans as an infringement on freedom of speech.
The state's top donors in 2006, according to the TPJ report, were Houston home builder Bob Perry and his wife, Doylene, who gave $7.1 million. San Antonio investor James Leininger and his wife, Cecilia, came in second with contributions totaling $5.5 million. Perry and Leininger mostly contribute to Republicans.
Democratic lawyer Fred Baron and his wife, Lisa, were third at $2.1 million. Dallas tax consultant George Ryan, who gave heavily to the independent gubernatorial campaign of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, was fourth at $1.4 million. Houston lawyer John O'Quinn ranked ninth with the $1.1 million he gave to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell.
While the total money raised in the 2006 cycle did not equal the $195 million of 2002, McDonald said it is a record if the 2002 totals subtract the $60 million that millionaire Democrat Tony Sanchez gave to his own losing campaign and the $11 million that millionaire Republican David Dewhurst spent from his wallet winning the lieutenant governor's office.
McDonald said the 2002 report also included candidates for Texas' top appeals courts while the current report does not.
"This is actually an increase of $30 million over 2002," McDonald said.
In 2002, when every member of the state Senate faced re-election after redistricting, the candidates raised a total of $21.5 million, he said. Last year, with just half the members facing re-election, candidates raised $27.4 million.
In the House, which elects all of its members every two years, fundraising jumped from $33 million in 2002 to $59.6 million in 2006, McDonald said.
He said the clout of special interests can be seen in the fact that 81 percent of the money raised by House candidates came from outside their districts.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune in politics," McDonald said.
The entire report, plus links to individual districts, can be found on the tpj.org Web site.
TOP DONORS OF 2006
Total raised by statewide and legislative incumbents and candidates: $157.6 million
Individuals
• Bob and Doylene Perry of Houston: $7.1 million
• James and Cecilia Leininger of San Antonio: $5.5 million
• Fred and Lisa Baron of Dallas: $2.1 million
• George and Amanda Ryan of Dallas: $1.4 million
• T. Boone Pickens of Dallas: $1.2 million
Political action committees
• Texas Association of Realtors: $3.6 million
• Texans for Lawsuit Reform: $3.4 million
• Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee: $2.1 million
• Texas Democratic Trust: $1.7 million
• Texas Medical Association: $1.6 million
Money raised by candidates
• Incumbents: $88.9 million
• Challengers: $36.9 million
• Open seats: $23.8 million
Note: The money raised by candidates does not equal the total because the total includes 15 senators who raised money but were not up for re-election.
Source: Texans for Public Justice
Read more in the Houston Chronicle
AUSTIN — Candidates for Texas' legislative and major statewide offices collected almost $158 million in campaign funds during the 2006 election cycle, according to a study released today by Texans for Public Justice.
That total is the equivalent of the annual average wage of more than 3,800 Texas workers.
But TPJ found there is little average about some of the donors to Texas politicians. Almost a third of all the money raised — $52 million — came from 141 millionaires who donated $100,000 or more each.
"Average people don't have much of a voice in the system," said TPJ Director Craig McDonald. "The role of the small donor is almost nonexistent.
Texans for Public Justice is a campaign finance reform advocacy group that supports limits on contributions to candidates and aggregate limits on money given by individual donors. Both concepts are generally opposed by Republicans as an infringement on freedom of speech.
The state's top donors in 2006, according to the TPJ report, were Houston home builder Bob Perry and his wife, Doylene, who gave $7.1 million. San Antonio investor James Leininger and his wife, Cecilia, came in second with contributions totaling $5.5 million. Perry and Leininger mostly contribute to Republicans.
Democratic lawyer Fred Baron and his wife, Lisa, were third at $2.1 million. Dallas tax consultant George Ryan, who gave heavily to the independent gubernatorial campaign of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, was fourth at $1.4 million. Houston lawyer John O'Quinn ranked ninth with the $1.1 million he gave to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell.
While the total money raised in the 2006 cycle did not equal the $195 million of 2002, McDonald said it is a record if the 2002 totals subtract the $60 million that millionaire Democrat Tony Sanchez gave to his own losing campaign and the $11 million that millionaire Republican David Dewhurst spent from his wallet winning the lieutenant governor's office.
McDonald said the 2002 report also included candidates for Texas' top appeals courts while the current report does not.
"This is actually an increase of $30 million over 2002," McDonald said.
In 2002, when every member of the state Senate faced re-election after redistricting, the candidates raised a total of $21.5 million, he said. Last year, with just half the members facing re-election, candidates raised $27.4 million.
In the House, which elects all of its members every two years, fundraising jumped from $33 million in 2002 to $59.6 million in 2006, McDonald said.
He said the clout of special interests can be seen in the fact that 81 percent of the money raised by House candidates came from outside their districts.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune in politics," McDonald said.
The entire report, plus links to individual districts, can be found on the tpj.org Web site.
TOP DONORS OF 2006
Total raised by statewide and legislative incumbents and candidates: $157.6 million
Individuals
• Bob and Doylene Perry of Houston: $7.1 million
• James and Cecilia Leininger of San Antonio: $5.5 million
• Fred and Lisa Baron of Dallas: $2.1 million
• George and Amanda Ryan of Dallas: $1.4 million
• T. Boone Pickens of Dallas: $1.2 million
Political action committees
• Texas Association of Realtors: $3.6 million
• Texans for Lawsuit Reform: $3.4 million
• Texas Republican Legislative Campaign Committee: $2.1 million
• Texas Democratic Trust: $1.7 million
• Texas Medical Association: $1.6 million
Money raised by candidates
• Incumbents: $88.9 million
• Challengers: $36.9 million
• Open seats: $23.8 million
Note: The money raised by candidates does not equal the total because the total includes 15 senators who raised money but were not up for re-election.
Source: Texans for Public Justice
Read more in the Houston Chronicle
Perry's rent on new digs runs $9,900 a month
By Peggy Fikac - San Antonio Express Austin Bureau - Sept. 26, 2007
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's new home in a gated community west of the capital city's downtown comes with a pool, a guesthouse and a monthly rent of $9,900 that Texans will pay for at least a year while the official Governor's Mansion undergoes repairs.
In disclosing lease details, the Republican governor's staff cited the need for Perry and his wife, Anita, to find a home in Austin's high-priced housing market that allows proper security and lets them host official functions without unduly inconveniencing neighbors with on-street parking.
The 1,178-square-foot guesthouse, for example, can serve as headquarters for staff and security, Perry spokesman Robert Black said.
But the state tab for the four-bedroom, 4,602-square-foot main home on more than three acres in the Estates Above Lost Creek — "just minutes from the Barton Creek Country Club," touted one real estate online ad — was deemed by some to be excessive.
"This is an extraordinary amount of money to house the governor and his wife," Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen said of the home, which is valued at just over $1 million on Travis County tax rolls but has been listed for sale at more than twice that.
"We have lots of fancy reception rooms at the Capitol where the governor could entertain dignitaries," Smith said, "and it would sure make a lot more sense to rent a more modest apartment in keeping with the average Texan's budget than one that costs three times in rent what the Texas family makes in a year — and more than the governor earns in a year."
Perry's salary is some $115,000 annually, and the annual rent is nearly $119,000.
The home at 8113 Hickory Creek Drive is owned by Murrell Campbell, a Perry political donor, but the transaction was handled by Campbell's daughter and son-in-law, Melinda and Guy Grace. Guy Grace donated $1,000 to Perry in 2005 and $2,500 in 2006, Black said.
"It's clear that the Perrys are using state money just to pay back a political donor," said Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto. "I'm sure there were several houses available in Austin that weren't associated with a donor."
Black scoffed, "Payback to a contribution (over two years) of $3,500?"
He added, "The governor doesn't know Mr. Grace, and the house is being leased at fair market value."
Nieto noted that besides the rent, the state will pay for any modifications needed to accommodate special requirements of the governor and that those will have to be removed under the lease terms when the Perrys leave.
In addition to rent and such modifications, the state is paying a $1,800 pet deposit for the Perrys' dachshund, Lucy.
The cost of renting the 21/2-story white rock house is factored into the cost of the Governor's Mansion repair project, priced at up to $10 million. The repairs could take about a year and a half. The mansion has problems with plumbing, rotting wood, lead paint and asbestos. It has no fire sprinklers and isn't energy efficient.
The lease is for one year, with a month-to-month option after that.
The Perrys hope to move into the house early next month, Black said.
But there's a question remaining, Public Citizen's Smith said. "When are we going to get invited to the governor's pool party?"
Read more in the San Antonio Express News
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's new home in a gated community west of the capital city's downtown comes with a pool, a guesthouse and a monthly rent of $9,900 that Texans will pay for at least a year while the official Governor's Mansion undergoes repairs.
In disclosing lease details, the Republican governor's staff cited the need for Perry and his wife, Anita, to find a home in Austin's high-priced housing market that allows proper security and lets them host official functions without unduly inconveniencing neighbors with on-street parking.
The 1,178-square-foot guesthouse, for example, can serve as headquarters for staff and security, Perry spokesman Robert Black said.
But the state tab for the four-bedroom, 4,602-square-foot main home on more than three acres in the Estates Above Lost Creek — "just minutes from the Barton Creek Country Club," touted one real estate online ad — was deemed by some to be excessive.
"This is an extraordinary amount of money to house the governor and his wife," Tom "Smitty" Smith of Public Citizen said of the home, which is valued at just over $1 million on Travis County tax rolls but has been listed for sale at more than twice that.
"We have lots of fancy reception rooms at the Capitol where the governor could entertain dignitaries," Smith said, "and it would sure make a lot more sense to rent a more modest apartment in keeping with the average Texan's budget than one that costs three times in rent what the Texas family makes in a year — and more than the governor earns in a year."
Perry's salary is some $115,000 annually, and the annual rent is nearly $119,000.
The home at 8113 Hickory Creek Drive is owned by Murrell Campbell, a Perry political donor, but the transaction was handled by Campbell's daughter and son-in-law, Melinda and Guy Grace. Guy Grace donated $1,000 to Perry in 2005 and $2,500 in 2006, Black said.
"It's clear that the Perrys are using state money just to pay back a political donor," said Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto. "I'm sure there were several houses available in Austin that weren't associated with a donor."
Black scoffed, "Payback to a contribution (over two years) of $3,500?"
He added, "The governor doesn't know Mr. Grace, and the house is being leased at fair market value."
Nieto noted that besides the rent, the state will pay for any modifications needed to accommodate special requirements of the governor and that those will have to be removed under the lease terms when the Perrys leave.
In addition to rent and such modifications, the state is paying a $1,800 pet deposit for the Perrys' dachshund, Lucy.
The cost of renting the 21/2-story white rock house is factored into the cost of the Governor's Mansion repair project, priced at up to $10 million. The repairs could take about a year and a half. The mansion has problems with plumbing, rotting wood, lead paint and asbestos. It has no fire sprinklers and isn't energy efficient.
The lease is for one year, with a month-to-month option after that.
The Perrys hope to move into the house early next month, Black said.
But there's a question remaining, Public Citizen's Smith said. "When are we going to get invited to the governor's pool party?"
Read more in the San Antonio Express News
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
University of Florida student arrested, Tasered at Kerry forum
By TRAVIS REED - AP - Sept. 18, 2007
GAINESVILLE, Fla. A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (Map, News) - A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (Map, News) - A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room. Meyer screams for help and tries to break away from officers with his arms flailing at them, then is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is shocked by the Taser. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.
University President J. Bernard Machen issued a statement Tuesday saying he requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate the arrest. Officials said it would determine whether the officers used an appropriate level of force.
Machen called the situation "regretful" in an afternoon news conference and said two officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the probe.
"We're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that a free exchange of ideas can occur," Machen said.
Kerry said Tuesday he regretted that a healthy discussion was interrupted and that he never had a dialogue end that way in 37 years of public appearances. He also said he hoped neither the student nor police were injured.
"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he told The Associated Press in Washington.
Meyer has his own Web site and it contains several "comedy" videos that he appears in. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk while trying to pick up a woman in a bar.
The site also has what is called a "disorganized diatribe" attributed to Meyer that criticizes the Iraq war, the news media for not covering the conflict enough and the American public for paying too much attention to celebrity news.
---
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (Map, News) - A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (Map, News) - A university student with a history of taping his own practical jokes was Tasered by campus police and arrested after loudly and repeatedly trying to ask U.S. Sen. John Kerry questions during a campus forum.
Andrew Meyer, 21, spent a night in jail before his release from jail Tuesday morning on his own recognizance. He had no comment when he left. His attorney, Robert Griscti, did not return messages seeking comment.
Videos of the Monday night incident, posted on several Web sites and played repeatedly on television news, show University of Florida police officers pulling Meyer away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.
University spokesman Steve Orlando said Meyer was asked to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. Meyer can be seen refusing to walk away and getting upset that the microphone was cut off.
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's all right, let me answer his question."
Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room. Meyer screams for help and tries to break away from officers with his arms flailing at them, then is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting.
As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is shocked by the Taser. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"
Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor.
University President J. Bernard Machen issued a statement Tuesday saying he requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate the arrest. Officials said it would determine whether the officers used an appropriate level of force.
Machen called the situation "regretful" in an afternoon news conference and said two officers involved in the incident were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the probe.
"We're absolutely committed to having a safe environment for our faculty and our students so that a free exchange of ideas can occur," Machen said.
Kerry said Tuesday he regretted that a healthy discussion was interrupted and that he never had a dialogue end that way in 37 years of public appearances. He also said he hoped neither the student nor police were injured.
"Whatever happened, the police had a reason, had made their decision that there was something they needed to do. Then it's a law enforcement issue, not mine," he told The Associated Press in Washington.
Meyer has his own Web site and it contains several "comedy" videos that he appears in. In one, he stands in a street with a sign that says "Harry Dies" after the latest Harry Potter book was released. In another, he acts like a drunk while trying to pick up a woman in a bar.
The site also has what is called a "disorganized diatribe" attributed to Meyer that criticizes the Iraq war, the news media for not covering the conflict enough and the American public for paying too much attention to celebrity news.
---
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Teacher Retirement System investment chief could make $904,500 under proposed pay plan - Board meets this week to debate changes that would raise payc
By Robert Elder - AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF - Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Talk about salary creep.
Under one pay plan the Teacher Retirement System will consider this week, its chief investment officer, Britt Harris, could make $904,500 a year in salary and bonuses next year.
That is about $200,000 more than Harris can make under the system's current plan, and it probably would make him the highest-paid state pension fund manager in the country.
A handful of other high-level investment managers at the teacher system could pull down $500,000 annually.
The retirement system's trustees are scheduled to meet Thursday to consider a new compensation plan for its investment staff. Although the current pay plan is just 14 months old, Harris says a more generous plan is needed to attract the talent he needs to continue reshaping the $111 billion pension fund.
"This is the seventh-largest fund in America," Harris told trustees at their July 27 meeting. "And we have the fiduciary responsibility to provide the best possible staff to the Texas teachers."
Harris told trustees in July that he needs the right staff to implement the ongoing overhaul of the fund's portfolio. It is shifting 29 percent of its assets out of traditional investments and into hedge funds, venture capital, real estate, buyout firms and other private equity investments.
The timing and cost of a new pay plan is drawing static from the two educators on the nine-member board, who say they are uncomfortable with the retirement system edging into private-sector pay territory.
"Even though these are highly successful investment personnel, they are working for the public and for teachers' and educators' money," said Mark Henry, superintendent of the Galena Park Independent School District. "But maybe my biggest concern is I'm not sure we gave the plan we put in place about a year ago time to work."
A draft plan released Tuesday would dramatically increase pay and bonuses for the investment staff. It would would allow the top 27 investment professionals to earn bonuses of between 100 percent and 125 percent of their base pay.
At a current annual salary of $402,000 a year, Harris would be eligible for a $502,500 bonus.
Harris is already the state's highest-paid employee, with potential bonuses that could push his total to $700,000 annually.
(Higher education employees and state university athletic coaches aren't included in state payroll figures.)
The retirement system's senior-level investment managers, some of whom make between $200,000 and $300,000 a year, could make more than $500,000 under the new plan.
Exact pay figures aren't available for the teacher fund or for many public pensions because of a recent court decision that exempts those figures from the state's Public Information Act.
Harris said the total maximum bonuses paid under the draft plan would be $9.4 million — and that's only if the fund meets all its investment benchmarks, which would translate into an extra $1 billion of revenue for the fund.
Under the current compensation plan, the fund will pay about $1.5 million in bonuses over three years — about 40 percent of the possible maximum. The proposed new plan has different benchmarks.
Henry, the school superintendent, said that while the system's focus is on the investment staff, a more expensive pay plan threatens to divide the work force at the agency.
"A quality internal auditor has just as much to do with the success of TRS as its investment division," Henry said. "Or a benefits counselor. Where do you draw the line?"
The system's draft plan is more generous than those of other public pension giants. The $169 billion pension fund for retired California teachers pays its investment chief a base salary of $300,000 and an equal amount in potential bonuses.
The $22 billion Employees Retirement System of Texas instituted a bonus plan in January that pays investment staff a maximum bonus of 25 percent of base salary.
Its top investment official makes $300,000 a year in base pay.
Read more
Talk about salary creep.
Under one pay plan the Teacher Retirement System will consider this week, its chief investment officer, Britt Harris, could make $904,500 a year in salary and bonuses next year.
That is about $200,000 more than Harris can make under the system's current plan, and it probably would make him the highest-paid state pension fund manager in the country.
A handful of other high-level investment managers at the teacher system could pull down $500,000 annually.
The retirement system's trustees are scheduled to meet Thursday to consider a new compensation plan for its investment staff. Although the current pay plan is just 14 months old, Harris says a more generous plan is needed to attract the talent he needs to continue reshaping the $111 billion pension fund.
"This is the seventh-largest fund in America," Harris told trustees at their July 27 meeting. "And we have the fiduciary responsibility to provide the best possible staff to the Texas teachers."
Harris told trustees in July that he needs the right staff to implement the ongoing overhaul of the fund's portfolio. It is shifting 29 percent of its assets out of traditional investments and into hedge funds, venture capital, real estate, buyout firms and other private equity investments.
The timing and cost of a new pay plan is drawing static from the two educators on the nine-member board, who say they are uncomfortable with the retirement system edging into private-sector pay territory.
"Even though these are highly successful investment personnel, they are working for the public and for teachers' and educators' money," said Mark Henry, superintendent of the Galena Park Independent School District. "But maybe my biggest concern is I'm not sure we gave the plan we put in place about a year ago time to work."
A draft plan released Tuesday would dramatically increase pay and bonuses for the investment staff. It would would allow the top 27 investment professionals to earn bonuses of between 100 percent and 125 percent of their base pay.
At a current annual salary of $402,000 a year, Harris would be eligible for a $502,500 bonus.
Harris is already the state's highest-paid employee, with potential bonuses that could push his total to $700,000 annually.
(Higher education employees and state university athletic coaches aren't included in state payroll figures.)
The retirement system's senior-level investment managers, some of whom make between $200,000 and $300,000 a year, could make more than $500,000 under the new plan.
Exact pay figures aren't available for the teacher fund or for many public pensions because of a recent court decision that exempts those figures from the state's Public Information Act.
Harris said the total maximum bonuses paid under the draft plan would be $9.4 million — and that's only if the fund meets all its investment benchmarks, which would translate into an extra $1 billion of revenue for the fund.
Under the current compensation plan, the fund will pay about $1.5 million in bonuses over three years — about 40 percent of the possible maximum. The proposed new plan has different benchmarks.
Henry, the school superintendent, said that while the system's focus is on the investment staff, a more expensive pay plan threatens to divide the work force at the agency.
"A quality internal auditor has just as much to do with the success of TRS as its investment division," Henry said. "Or a benefits counselor. Where do you draw the line?"
The system's draft plan is more generous than those of other public pension giants. The $169 billion pension fund for retired California teachers pays its investment chief a base salary of $300,000 and an equal amount in potential bonuses.
The $22 billion Employees Retirement System of Texas instituted a bonus plan in January that pays investment staff a maximum bonus of 25 percent of base salary.
Its top investment official makes $300,000 a year in base pay.
Read more
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Edwards Goes After the 'Corporate Democrats' -- Is This a Turning Point for His Campaign?
By Joshua Holland - AlterNet - August 26, 2007
In a dramatic speech, John Edwards fired a major broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, "corporate Democrats," -- the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.
Last week, John Edwards fired a broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, "corporate Democrats," the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.
Edwards is en fuego right now, and if he keeps up the heat, his candidacy will either be widely embraced by the emerging progressive movement or utterly annihilated by an entrenched establishment that fears few things more than a telegenic populist with enough money to mount a credible campaign.
"It's time to end the game," Edwards told a crowd in Hanover, New Hampshire. "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over." He exhorted Washington law-makers to "look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no."
It's a structural argument, and Edwards didn't pull punches in calling out his fellow Democrats, saying: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." The rhetoric was a clear signal that Edwards is going to beat the drums of reform as a contrast to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
About a third of the speech focused on the trade deals that Bill Clinton championed, and his argument that those "wedded to the past" can't provide the answers was a barely-veiled rebuke of the Clintonian arm of the party, and the media's chosen "front-runner" for the nomination.
If Democrats are engaged in an existential struggle between the party's establishment and its grassroots, Edwards is obviously betting that the grassroots' passion and energy will trump the Machine Democrats message' apparatus -- this was a speech that was not written by the usual coterie of Beltway consultants.
The most striking aspect of Edwards' speech was his implicit argument that class still exists. For years, both parties have obscured the divisions that are so prominent in modern American society, painting a picture of a country in which we're all part of an entrepreneurial class with more or less similar interests -- a key ingredient in the false "center" to which politicians and Beltway pundits kow-tow. "Let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience," Edwards said last week. "You cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them."
It was an explicit rebuke of Obama's "new politics" -- Obama recently told the Washington Post that "the insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate; they just can't buy all the chairs." Obama's approach to "cleaning up Washington" is not bad, but ultimately tinkers around the edges of a corrupted legislative system.
Edwards is not so conciliatory on the subject. "For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care," he said. "And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform."
Contrast that naked confrontation of corporate power with the tepid appeals to working Americans that were a trademark of John Kerry's 2004 campaign. In announcing his candidacy, Kerry offered a bit of demagoguery about CEOs -- he segued from bashing Cheney and Halliburton --and boldly promised to end tax breaks "that help companies move American jobs overseas." Also in his plan for corporate accountability: "No more contracts for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they decide to do what's right."
Hillary Clinton's economic proposals track with the thinking popular among the ostensible "progressives" at the DLC and the Third Way -- policies that give Americans the "opportunity" to save for retirement, a decidedly centrist approach to spiraling college costs and other familiar policies from the 1990s. She's not a fair trader nor a free trader, she says -- she's for "smart trade," "pro-American" trade.
Edward's speech about the economy isn't the only time that he's strayed from the bounds of "respectable" discourse in Washington. In May, he said that the "war on terror" was a political "bumper sticker" that the administration used to "justify everything [Bush] does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."
Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him.
John Edwards is becoming a very different kind of candidate, and his growing message of empowerment and attack on the corporate class may prove to be the most interesting story of campaign 2008.
In a dramatic speech, John Edwards fired a major broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, "corporate Democrats," -- the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.
Last week, John Edwards fired a broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, "corporate Democrats," the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.
Edwards is en fuego right now, and if he keeps up the heat, his candidacy will either be widely embraced by the emerging progressive movement or utterly annihilated by an entrenched establishment that fears few things more than a telegenic populist with enough money to mount a credible campaign.
"It's time to end the game," Edwards told a crowd in Hanover, New Hampshire. "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over." He exhorted Washington law-makers to "look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no."
Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.
[The system is] controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.
It's a structural argument, and Edwards didn't pull punches in calling out his fellow Democrats, saying: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." The rhetoric was a clear signal that Edwards is going to beat the drums of reform as a contrast to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
About a third of the speech focused on the trade deals that Bill Clinton championed, and his argument that those "wedded to the past" can't provide the answers was a barely-veiled rebuke of the Clintonian arm of the party, and the media's chosen "front-runner" for the nomination.
If Democrats are engaged in an existential struggle between the party's establishment and its grassroots, Edwards is obviously betting that the grassroots' passion and energy will trump the Machine Democrats message' apparatus -- this was a speech that was not written by the usual coterie of Beltway consultants.
The most striking aspect of Edwards' speech was his implicit argument that class still exists. For years, both parties have obscured the divisions that are so prominent in modern American society, painting a picture of a country in which we're all part of an entrepreneurial class with more or less similar interests -- a key ingredient in the false "center" to which politicians and Beltway pundits kow-tow. "Let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience," Edwards said last week. "You cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them."
It was an explicit rebuke of Obama's "new politics" -- Obama recently told the Washington Post that "the insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate; they just can't buy all the chairs." Obama's approach to "cleaning up Washington" is not bad, but ultimately tinkers around the edges of a corrupted legislative system.
Edwards is not so conciliatory on the subject. "For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care," he said. "And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform."
Contrast that naked confrontation of corporate power with the tepid appeals to working Americans that were a trademark of John Kerry's 2004 campaign. In announcing his candidacy, Kerry offered a bit of demagoguery about CEOs -- he segued from bashing Cheney and Halliburton --and boldly promised to end tax breaks "that help companies move American jobs overseas." Also in his plan for corporate accountability: "No more contracts for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they decide to do what's right."
Hillary Clinton's economic proposals track with the thinking popular among the ostensible "progressives" at the DLC and the Third Way -- policies that give Americans the "opportunity" to save for retirement, a decidedly centrist approach to spiraling college costs and other familiar policies from the 1990s. She's not a fair trader nor a free trader, she says -- she's for "smart trade," "pro-American" trade.
Edward's speech about the economy isn't the only time that he's strayed from the bounds of "respectable" discourse in Washington. In May, he said that the "war on terror" was a political "bumper sticker" that the administration used to "justify everything [Bush] does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."
Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him.
John Edwards is becoming a very different kind of candidate, and his growing message of empowerment and attack on the corporate class may prove to be the most interesting story of campaign 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
