California Sues Over EPA Waiver
By Nicole Belle Saturday Dec 22, 2007 8:34am
Usually, when someone applies for a waiver of some legislation, it's because they are unable to comply with the standards set. Not so when it comes to the EPA air quality standards and the state of California. California has been on the forefront of combatting smog since the 70s when we had nearly daily smog alerts. And since 1975, California has requested and received a waiver from federal EPA standards, because our standards were stricter.
But then we got the Bush administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency today denied a waiver that would have allowed California and at least a dozen other states to impose their own stricter vehicle tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution -- not a confusing patchwork of state rules -- to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles," EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
The decision is a victory of sorts for auto makers, who opposed state-by-state regulations.
In November, California sued to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule whether the state can put its strict vehicle tailpipe emissions standards into effect.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would "sue again and sue again and sue again" in order to get approval to put in place tough new fuel economy regulations.
Why is it that Republicans trumpet "states' rights" until it actually benefits the states?
Login or Register to post comments.
Because it doesn't benefit the corporations?
That was easy... even on a Sunday morning
Why is it that Republicans trumpet “states’ rights” until it actually benefits the states?
Because democracy means nothing to them. They will settle for dictatorship or nothing.
First they messed with our pot laws, now they're messing with my smog? Tomorrow it will be state parks and wildlife preserves.
Secede now! Just like the Lakota nation. The Feds have broken our treaties!
Funny... Why is it that the Ron Paul haters that post on this site claim that without FEDERAL regulations, industry will be free to poison us however they wish? This example shoots holes in that theory...
Too bad plastic surgery can't eliminate smog...the #1 ugliest thing in LA.
It's hard to pick a favorite in a fight between California and the US, or between Arnold and The Dummy, but between Smog and Clean Air!!!!!!!!!?????????
CLEAN AIR! GO CALIFORNIA! GO ARNOLD!
DOWN WITH SMOG! DOWN WITH THE FEDS! DOWN WITH THE PREPOSTEROUS PUTZ!
Why does bush hate america so much?
I remember when I was a kid in So Cal back in the 60's and 70's.....the air was brown in the summer..Nowadays there are those days when the air quality is bad,but not like it used to be.I'm proud of California,for all the work and effort to help get a cleaner environment....sometimes we don't like the cost initially.But I think it's safe to say that we're all glad that we've taken the needed steps to getting a cleaner air quality, plus,a cleaner environment in general.Now....if we can only get the rest of the country and planet to join in.......
What would Jack Bauer do?
noitaluspacne @ 4:
Good point how much worse can it get? The republicans don't believe in any of that regulation stuff either.
I wonder if Paul would eliminate all oversight of the federal government? That is like a regulating agency, don't you think?
Mudshark @ 8:
......the rest of the planet could look like Los Angeles!
wouldn't that be great!
Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and nothing will surprise you anymore.
mudshark @ 9:
Well, I think Jack Bauer would go ahead and do what needs to be done. In this case, that means getting new regulations ready to implement despite the lack of a waiver. Bush and his cronies are counting on governmental inertia to prevent California's standards from being strengthened until long after he is out of office. Getting ready now means being prepared to roll the moment a new president takes office. [Link]
Billt @ 7:
Because he--and his friends-- love money more.
Just another example of Republican morals.
these people should be ashamed of themselves...but they have no morals so they know no shame. what would Jesus say?
best democracy money can buy as Greg Palast would say
I live in the Central Valley of Big Smoggy, where we lead the nation in per capita asthma deaths. That's not a statistical anomaly either, we have more people here in the Big Valley (the TV show was named after and was set here) than many states. We get daily air quality bulletins on the local news.
I live less than 1 hour's drive from the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and I'm lucky if they are visible one or two days a year. On the bright side, we get some really pretty sunsets.
Cuz they're hypocrites maybe?
Bush will live with Satan for an eternity for deliberately polluting California.
[this name is already in use by another poster. please find another name to use. thanks.]
I agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger and he should sue and sue again until the EPA complies. Schwarzennegger has to breathe the same polluted air just like everyone else in California.
Besides, even if these so called "Conservatives" agree with the Bush Administration's decision they would still have to agree that this is another instance of Big brother. If it were a Democrat making this decision they would be up in arms. I guess for most "Conservatives", having a Big brother form of Government is better under a Republican leadership. That "state rights" claim they always make when a Democrat is making the decisions is a load of crap and this Bush Administration decision is another example.
EPA be damned. California should simply not issue license and registration to Autos that fail to meet the states standards. To hell with Washington.
noitaluspacne @ 4:
Because, like, we all know that the wind doesn't blow, and rivers down't travel through many states, so there is no need for an over arching agency to protect people in one state from the possiblity that polluters will buy the government in another state.
Sure cite a bunch of people who said government doesn't work, got elected and then worked to prove it - even by killing the jewel in our crown (FEMA) - to bollster the Ron Paul presidential run.
Makes a lot of sense doesn't it
rob @ #1 nailed it: Because it doesn't benefit the corporations. this nation has got to be taken back from them.
Clytemnestra @ 23:
Oh and just because I don't want Ron Paul as president doesn't mean I hate him.
Lovely black and white, either you love and want my candidate or you hate him, world you live in.
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules — to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles,” EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement."
By the way, this "moving forward with a clear national solution" isn't going to be like the Bush Administration's response was to Katrina and Rita will it? I bet it will be and the only thing we will hear from Bush is: "Heckuva job Johnnie!"
FOX is State Sponsored TV @ 19:
Nice sentiment, and when I hear (or read) things like the above, It is the only time I wish I wasn't an atheist.
This is Great!! As if bush didn't and his lackies didn't look like big enough corporate putz's.
This will certainly ring bells with a lot of people. The idiots in power believe in States Rights only when it serves their needs to feed their corporate dog-pack. But when a state wants to go further than the rest of the pack to do something good that doesn't feed the corporate dogs, then it's not good?
Go ARNIE!!!
curtilingus @ 3:
Are we related?
Are these not the same Repugs that have been pushing the ideology of states rights, and state solutions?
Radically Moderate @ 31:
See #28
Radically Moderate @ 31:
Yep, the same bunch and as Arnie just found out, its just another talking point that amounts to a load of bull.
When CA secedes for real, it's going to be a lot more interesting than Ecotopia.
Radically Moderate @ 31:
If the federal government does something they don't like, the GOP screams "state's rights!" But when it's a state doing it, they believe in federal solutions.
It's kinda like how they became concerned about racism when Clarence Thomas was nominated, or sexual harassment with Paula Jones.
And they called John Kerry a flip-flopper.
curtilingus @ 11:
All big cities have this air quality problem.....Mexico City makes LA look good.India and China are starting to see that they have a problem.I understand what you're saying.......but just think what it would be like if Calif hadn't implemented stricter air quality regulations....it's still better than it was.
myiq2xu @ 35:
Also when AG Ashcroft sued Oregon over a citizen supported right to die law.
Joe O. @ 33:
Another phony talking point that goes right along with the "states rights" claim as in this California/EPA issue is the "fiscally Conservative" Republican. That always gave me a chuckle. These Republicans have done so much Government spending they make the old Soviet union Politburo look like a bunch of tightwads in comparison. In fact, I bet that is Bush's plain. They are going to throw newly printed money at California's smog problem instead of actually solving it.
hadenuf @ 34:
It wasn't that long ago that California was a "Red" state. We not only were Reagan's home state, but we had 16 straight years of GOP governors.
Now we're so "Blue" the GOP wants to change the rules so they can get some of the electoral votes. We know what GOP leadership is like, that's why we voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry.
I don't see this as the unconstitutional left-wing side of Bush that some of the posters have described it as. The federal government is supposed to get involved in matters of interstate commerce. Cars manufactured in any auto plant are shipped to all 50 states. It is an onerous burden on the (auto) businesses of other states to have to make special models for California. Hence the justification for regulation by the federal government.
I would have a problem with this ruling if the issue were cars manufactured in California and sold in California, just as I do have an issue with the Clinton/Bush administrations regulation of marijuana grown in a state and sold within that state to consumers who will use it within said state.
Apparently, I believe in the constitution or something.
Joe O. @ 38:
One more giant Repug hoax is the mythical strict constructionist........whew, thats a hoot ;-)
More Anti-pollution laws=less corporate profits for the auto sector according to ReTHUglican talking points memos........the idear is fast, cheaply made autos at maximum profits, not a good reliable fuel efficient non-polluting auto. And Americans bitch about China's lack corporate laws? Hahahaha.
Hmmph. Looks like Arnold is just your typical liber-.....wait.....WHAT??????
Clytemnestra @ 25:
The term "Ron Paul haters" is used to identify people that strongly dislike his principles/policies. I doubt anyone knows him personally. If you hate (strongly dislike) his principles/policies, then yes, your a Ron Paul hater. If not, then the comment clearly wasn't directed at you.
Radically Moderate @ 41:
Ultra conservatism trumps strict constructionism a working model would be Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia..........uh, that was my point.......ideology trumps Constitution/Bill o' Rights.
another example of domestic terrorism by the Bush administration
I was talking to a young woman who is a sales rep for a company in L.A.
I called to get samples and we were talking about the weather, etc., as I am in Vermont, and she said that when she left L.A. on a trip she didn't need to bring her inhaler; she only needed it back there.
It is an outrage that the Bush criminals continue to protect polluting industries at the expensive of the health of the citizen-taxpayers-voters.
Suppose Montana wanted an exemption from emissions standards on the basis they do not have a pollution problem and do not want to their consumers to pay extra for their cars. In such a scenario would we be praising the Bush administration for its solid commitment to the environment, or lambasting it for interfering with states rights?
California has been waiting for a decision on this since 2005 and had to sue earlier this year just to get them to make this decision.
curtilingus @ 3:
I'm down with that. America needs California more than California needs America. Anytime I travele abroad, I always say that I'm from California, not America.
Clytemnestra @ 23:
What doesn't make sense is that if we didn't have these FEDERAL agencies to "protect us" that our state and local governments would sit by and do nothing. Which, as the article points out, is a silly claim. It also doesn't make sense that if Monsanto dumped toxins into a river in state A, the people of state B couldn't sue Monsanto for polluting their water.
The other 16 states that would be affected by this are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
Joe G @ 48:
Either way in Bush World he would call his decision a win for the environment, and blame the Dems. for not being on board to help the environment.
The MSM would say "everything is ducky" and "we should all go have some coffee and sponge cake".
Joe G @ 48 inexplicable wrote:
Could you explain how allowing more pollutants into the air would demonstrate a "solid commitment to the environment"?
Years ago, states rights were generally upheld, because people didn't want the federal government to interfere and become too all-powerful. Now, it seems the feds want to interfere in everything and/or anything that doesn't benefit the big corporate elites. The problem with having the corporations run things is that they do a very crappy job. All they care about is profit and they will set aside the welfare of the citizens and consumers to achieve the profit. While this may look good to shareholders and investors, it does nothing to help the vast majority of Americans. Where government used to, and should exist to protect citizens, it is now twisted to protect the large interests.
Different Anonymous @ 54:
The writer was suggesting that you mentally replace the above California story with the supplied fictitious Montana story. In such a case, Bush would actually have been forcing the feds stricter evironmental policy on the state. That could be viewed as "pro environment".
Just another example of why not to elect an AWOL coke-snorting fratboy drunk as president.
Ha Ha Ha Ha!!
How about sharing this solution with the rest of the planet? Does not anyone ask for specifics when these people are allowed to so brazenly lie?
Gee, is smog yet another reason while people in England and most of the industrialized nations like longer than Americans?
Out here in Big Smoggy, when we say "I can feel something in the air" we're not speaking figuratively.
Or 'live' longer, whichever you prefer more
tyree @ 20:
site monitor this posters useing my name to post! i thought useing anothers post name was a banable offence!!!!!!! since it was done again last night i guess it isnt!!!!!!!!!!!!
[it's now fixed.]
tyree @ 29:
ditto!
Sexy photo! Mmmm.... nothing like the smell of L.A. in the morning! Smells like... cancer!
With Bush on the job, so perhaps L.A. can experience the wonders of cities like Bejing!
Though I've never been to either, I distinctly remember almost passing out with the smog during a winter inversions in Denver in the early 80s during trips (gee, thanks ex-Californians). The cool thing is as you were gasping for air (defrost on high, shoving it in your face), the acid in the smog would burn your eyes and make them water. Then your acidified tears would irritate your face. Lovely. Can't wait to return to that; heck of a job Bushie!
Let's not forget the huge layoffs in the EPA two years ago, nor the industry hack that was heading it, nor the recent scandal with it. These guys are actually pretty good at destroying needed government services and taking your tax money with them. I wonder why people let them? Somehow I'm always surprised that the public seems to like receiving forcible anal rape. Go figure.
Joe G says,
It is an onerous burden on the (auto) businesses of other states to have to make special models for California. Hence the justification for regulation by the federal government.
This situation has been present for decades. If you bought a car in other states they often had to have modifications to meet CA emmission standards, especially in the 70's and 80's. Eventually the rest of the cars caught up with CA's regs. We lived with it before, we can live with it again. Stop defending the auto industry.
cuz far too often they believe in greed, not "rights" of any kind but their own coffers'.
tyree @ 61:
promiss!
I remember moving to Pasadena from San Diego in July of '83 to attend school. It was two months before I realized I was living at the foot of the San Gabriel mountains.
tyree @ 20:
you got to be kidding me! this was done on pourpose !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wake up Ron Paul supporters. It is the intention of the republicans to make the government look stupid and inneffective. That way they have the perfect argument for privatizing and deregulating. Our government works fine, when it's staffed properly. Libertarians want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is the essential difference between Kucinich supporters (correct the system) and RP supporters (reactionary).
noitaluspacne @ 55:
In either case (I.E. Montana or California) those law suits are for the courts to decide upon. They could throw out every lawsuit that Montana as in the scenario presented as being frivilous. Nor is this about protecting Ford or GM. They will hike the prices of their vehicles to compensate for any changes that would need to be made in any case, no matter who decided and I'm sure that Gov. Schwarzenegger knows that.
What we are saying here, is that (as the article suggests) this is a state issue. What Bush is suggesting is a Federal blanket fix all that would cover all states. This can not be done in any simple manner. You can not come up with one plan to cover all state smog problems because every state has a different situation. The red tape involved in this could be staggering. Not to mention the fact that the smog problems are not only caused by vehicles but also by industrial plants and other sources. Should the Feds regulate that as well as transit and other state problems as well?
Joe G @ 39:
Onerous burden? They manufacture cars with a wide variety of options, including completely different engines, and that's not an "onerous burden." What about cars sold in other countries? Exactly how much more does it cost to make cars that pollute less?
But let's assume you're correct. Here's a simple solution - make all the cars conform to California's emission standards.
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules — to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles,” EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
Rice also sparred with Kerrey, who took issue with Rice's repeatedly quoting Bush that he was "tired of swatting at flies" and that he demanded a more comprehensive strategy to attack the terrorist network.
Variations on a theme...
the EPA will tell you that the polution in california will not be a problem for much longer as the fault line under it will cause after the big one hits california will sink into the pacific ocean, problem solved and it wont cost the government a dime!!!!!!!!!!!!
The thugs will 'trumpet' whatever bullshit slogan will push their criminal agenda. The permanent lip lock they've got on the ass of the religious reich is the perfect example.
tyree @ 74:
Even if the land sank into the sea, the polluted air would still be there, covering the coastal cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas.
Che, proper staffing doesn't turn bad policy into good. I doubt many people not afflicted with rabies would agree the War on Drugs could be won if only we would fund/staff it more. As amusing as it is, it does occasionally get old listening to the people who voted to give the federal government maximum reach into our lives express utter shock that the same government would use that power against us. Power corrupts, infinite power corrupts_________ (fill in the blank).
myiq2xu @ 76:
yes but then arizonia will be concidered beach front property and thiers nothing like a day at the beach!
Che's Lounge @ 69:
So, by your own admission, the federal government is not truely accountable to the people. Because if it was, it wouldn't be possible for it to bumble things this badly as the idiots in charge would have been brought to justice a long time ago.
I agree that if the people in charge were doing the right thing, this wouldn't but such an issue. But, as you pointed out, they are not doing the right thing.
Instead of defending the system we should be figuring out how to fix it. If you don't agree with Ron Pauls approach, fine. I can buy that. So how should it be fixed? Please don't tell me it can simply be fixed by stuffing it with good people. As we are witnessing today, when good people go bad, or are never good to begin with, the general public gets screwed!
FYI, I believe Ron Pauls stance on privitization is this:
Government control of something is just another kind of monopoly. When said monopoly does not act in the best interest of the general public, the general public has no choice, no alternative to turn to. Privitization is about introducing choices back into the system and allowing the general public to choose the solution that works the best.
It isn't about giving all the power to the Haliburtons of the world. Haliburton is a creation of our broken government system. Privatization is form of protection from the Haliburtons, not an endorsement of them.
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/ Rep Wexler's impeach Cheney site has over 130,000 signatures now.....................for those of you who haven't yet.....take a look.
"Why is it that Republicans trumpet “states’ rights” until it actually benefits the states?"
The states' rights argument is used only when it serves the narrow right wing agenda. Like when you talk about the Civil War to some people from the South. They insist that the war was about states' rights not slavery, until you ask them, "...States' rights to do what?" Well, to own slaves, of course! Now the states want the right to improve the lives of their citizens and the environment and excede the federal government's lax pollution standards so it's a bad thing.
mudshark @ 80:
i shudder to think of what might happen when thiers a million names on the petition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tyree @ 82:
Nothing
Sadly
Among state's rights worshipers, the general welfare ends where private profit begins.
Clytemnestra @ 18:
Cause they are hypocrites definitely. They are self centered users that use trite, antiquated slogans like "states rights" as methods to promote their bankrupt philosophy. Of course, they'll be the first to invoke the power of the Federal Government against states like California when it suits their needs. I hope Ahnold sues their phony ass to hell and back.
Joe G.,
Che, proper staffing doesn’t turn bad policy into good
Then don't vote. That's how we staff the government.
I never said the government was perfect. Far from it. Despite your totally missing my point, the war on drugs is a good example of how we need to change things around here. My point is that we have a great system. Libertarians want to rape it. Progressives want to improve on it.
noitaluspacne Says:
Instead of defending the system we should be figuring out how to fix it
No shit, Sherlock. Did you read my post?
This is the essential difference between Kucinich supporters (correct the system) and RP supporters (reactionary).
If you want a revolution, I wish you luck. You'll need it. Lots of it.
Where are all the Libertarian local control Special Forces here?!!?? Come on you Libertarians, put party aside and stand for your self-proclaimed principle here!!!
just last week C&L said Ahnold was a phony environmentalist...now this...
so which is it?
Government control of something is just another kind of monopoly. When said monopoly does not act in the best interest of the general public, the general public has no choice, no alternative to turn to. Privitization is about introducing choices back into the system and allowing the general public to choose the solution that works the best.
The utter stupidity of this stance is that it completely ingnores the electoral system. While that system also needs to be taken back by the people, it is the very system in which the people control Paul's so-called monopoly. To deny the electoral system is the worst aspect of fascism that I can imagine.
Privatization is most certainly NOT about giving choice back to the people. It is about giving control to a small group of well funded individuals who have ZERO interest in the common good.
Fascist pigs. Someone please tell me how republicons can be so cartoonishly evil that they can stuff smog down there own children's lungs condemning them to choking asthma and disease?! How is it that they can be this fucked up? Seriously? Sick sick sick. No exagerration here. This is what they are doing. We currently have smog alerts, toxic, choking asthma incuding smog, and these scum-fuckers want to put a thicker coat on the fragile lungs of children? Oh man, fuck these assholes. Seriously. I am off to write Governor Schwarzenegger in solidarity, and tell him to give these sadistic whores hell. Does anyone have a link?
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
I am writing you to express my deep, deep, sincere stance in support and solidarity with you in combating the pro-business, anti-human-health administration, who's EPA is blocking our state efforts to manage our environment for the well-being and benefit of the citizens of this great State.
Of the many ongoing political issues that have me outraged, this one has hit me sharply and got me really boiling. The republican party preaches, religiously, on state's rights. And here they fall silent as they attempt to crush those very rights (in 17 states). It is so sickening I can hardly express the extent. It is the delicate tissues of the lungs of our children, as well as our climate and coast that we have an abject right to manage and protect, with no substantive rational whatever why we should be impeded from doing so.
Please, I urge you to follow-through, as swiftly and decisively as possible, with your actions to overthrough the burden of chains that the current federal administrative cabal is bearing us down with. You have the support of so many people on this issue, what must be an overwhelming majority in this state, that you can act in confidence. Thank you greatly for your efforts, leadership, and your independence in putting priniciple over party. The courage it takes is very clear.
Joey
Bandini @ 88:
Suing the gubmint isn't so much environmentalism for Ahnold as it is political pragmatism. He'd be crucified by the voters in this state if he didn't stand up for this, he's just earning brownie points for what we all benefit from. We enjoy our clean air, even if BushCo doesn't.
As to forcing the poor car companies to do things differently for each region, there's also a simple solution to that. Stop selling cars in Kollyforniah if you don't want to meet our standards.
I really hope this gets done.
I see my once pristine blue skyline disappearing daily. My own state, highly conservative, business dominated Arizona signed up for this months ago.
Perhaps the EPA should change its name to BPA.
Cafe standards should have been changed 6 years ago. We have fallen so far behind in innovation due to the greed of the Republican market economy. It is a sad time for America.
brando @ 12:
That movie led me to buy a Prius. It isn't totally environmentally friendly, but it is a start. I had a Lexus that I traded for the Prius and almost tripled my gas mileage. I now see that there is a smaller electric car that will have another fight to be allowed to be sold. They have priced it at around $35,000. Just can't seem to fight BIG oil and the bushites. They have a goal and I guess it doesn't include us regular people. I know many people who would buy one for their "go to work and back car" if the price were more reasonable. They say they would still like to have a "work car" in order to haul and move big things. They would prefer to drive a "gas free" vehicle for the short trips to save the air and gas. As K.O. says goodbye and GOOD LUCK.
Che's Lounge @ 88:
youve got it so twisted che.
tell me in what world would a company thats not looking out for the common good survive if we had different companies to choose from?? how would said company survive if we had leaders who WERE looking out for the common good??
hey i thought a government agency was supposed to be the best goddamned thing for us???
JoeySoCal @ 89:
Maybe because they like the taste of smog (tastes like money to some, like death to others) and they can afford the healthcare anyway?
Different Anonymous @ 91:
Personally, I still view duh Govunatah as something of a tool. But we'll see how this (and several other factors, including e-voting) play out before a final judgement.
One factor is California stands to benefit from "green collar" jobs. Jobs that will only happen with severe and enforced environmental restrictions...
So his motivation doesn't have to be COMPLETELY altruistic... though I'm sure he plans to live in CA for the rest of his life. Bush apparently plans to leave the country (or hole up in an isolated cult compound in Texas), so what does he care of the rest of us? He's stolen his. I would not be surprised in the least if his family and the Dick move to Dubai to live like true banana Republicans in luxurious exile.
Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes GuardianUK
I'm shocked, shocked!
edited by sitemonitor
tell me in what world would a company thats not looking out for the common good survive if we had different companies to choose from??
Since when do YOU choose the company that takes over the power grid that supplies your electricity? Since when do YOU choose the company that controls the water supply in your area? Since when do YOU choose the company that supplies electronic voting machines to your district?
The only possible connection you might have is in voting for the morons who happily grant these concessions to the bidder who will do it the cheapest and grease palms the most effectively. Try googling the greatest massive power outage in the US in 2003 that occurred shortly after the grid was privatized into the hands of First Energy, who promptly cut the staff to bare bones. They were totally unprepared to handle the situation. Who handed that grid to First Energy and how much competitive bidding went into the decision?
It is now a proven FACT that Diebold supplied hackable voting machines in the two critical states of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Did YOU pick them over other electronic systems. Did the voting public even have a say in that decision?. I seriously doubt it.
Did you have a hand in deciding which of the THOUSAND security companies were chosen to replace the military in handling the security of Iraq?
Get a fucking clue. WE don't choose ANY of these corporations.
edited by sitemonitor
how would said company survive if we had leaders who WERE looking out for the common good??
Because said companies have a tremendous amount of influence over the choice of those leaders! THAT's what needs to change. But wiping the slate clean a la Ron Paul and the libertarians is no answer. Election reform is. Corporate regulation is.
Privatization is a disaster. The more our government farms out services, the more fucked up things become (see Iraq). You've just been tricked into thinking it's the government infrastructure, because agencies like FEMA are run by idiots. That is a deliberate methodology. It feeds the argument for privatization. In fact it's the corporate infrastructure that fucks things up. Once again (is everyone paying attention?), because they look at the bottom line and their shareholders, and NOT the common good.
Login or Register to post comments.