Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2043)	1/14/2002 7:04:36 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

JAMES O. GOLDSBOROUGH THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE The illogic of deficit federal spending American-style, two-party government is adversarial. Abandon it for one-party government and there's no need for elections. Or else you have Soviet-style elections. In wartime, survival, not party politics, takes precedence, so President Bush was getting a free ride on the economy. No more. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has raised questions about Bush's economics, and they deserve consideration. The White House hit the roof after Daschle criticized Bush for squandering the Clinton surpluses with tax cuts and worsening the recession. "Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes," sputtered Bush in response, which is the opposite of what he meant, but we got the drift. Historically, taxes are raised in wartime. The income tax, passed in 1913, increased by 40 times the government's income to pay for World War I. World War II was financed through a combination of major tax increases and war bonds. We don't know yet the full cost of the war against terrorism, but adding up money destined for New York, national defense, World Trade Center survivors and aid to industries like airlines and $100 billion is a fair guess. Daschle is not for raising taxes but is critical of tax cuts already passed and opposes cutting them further in this war environment, as Bush wants to do. Bush still supports the dreadful "stimulus" bill passed by the House last year and still breathing. Republicans are outraged at Daschle's contumely, but instead of accusing him of things he didn't say or slandering him with a press release called "Sen. Daschle's Economic Speech for Dummies" (put out by ex-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott), they should address his main point: We don't need more tax cuts. A year ago, the White House projected a $5 trillion budget surplus in coming years and said it justified a $1.6 trillion tax cut. After initially prefering deficit reduction for bolstering Social Security, Democrats whittled the tax cut down to $1.3 trillion. Those surplus projections were as phony as politics gets. They assumed the "New Economy" boom of the 1990s -- the longest in history -- would last another decade. The business cycle was supposedly dead, replaced by a new way of valuating assets. Wealth would go on multiplying, and government rake in permanent surpluses. "It's your money, not the government's," said Bush repeatedly. Not exactly. It wasn't anybody's money. It wasn't even paper money, which actually exists if you're smart enough to cash in. Projections exist only in the mind. In attacking Daschle, Republicans defended the tax cut as anti-recessionary policy -- "perhaps the most important thing the Congress did last year to promote economic security," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Trouble is, Bush's plan was never anti-recessionary. Bush first announced the tax cut as candidate Bush in 1999, a year before before the recession started. It was never meant as a stimulus (the economy was still booming), but as a generic Republican campaign promise, the same kind Bob Dole had made four years earlier. Bush's plan was scheduled for this year, not last, and only became a stimulus bill after the recession began in March and a bipartisan Congress agreed it could help the economy. Those $300 checks we received perhaps did some marginal good, but were insignificant compared with the Fed's interest rate cuts, which stimulated the auto and housing markets. The real problem is that most of the tax cut will take effect in future years, after the recession is supposed to be ended. As a stimulus it will be useless, except to stimulate an early return to the era of budget deficits, which was Daschle's point. Under the Republican stimulus plan, two-thirds of the money goes to a handful of super-rich corporations, many of which find themselves on the list published last week by the Wall Street Journal of Bush's largest campaign donors. "Mr. Bush," said the Journal, "has seized a commanding advantage in fund-raising thanks in large part to corporations." Even as Bush was carping at Daschle, the White House was predicting a return to deficits as early as this year. This year's projected $300 billion surplus is already gone. Why Bush would choose to reward big campaign donors in this war-deficit environment is a question that deserves an answer. Bush's plan has the additional flaw of not being an economic stimulus at all, since corporations currently are operating at well under capacity because of falling demand and will not be inclined to increase investment until demand picks up. The best thing Bush could do for the economy is put money in the hands of workers and consumers through a combination of unemployment and health care benefits, plus short-term tax credits to businesses that hire new employees. Health care costs went up 7 percent in 2000, the fastest increase since 1993, driven mainly by drug costs, which have nearly doubled in three years. Whatever happened to the bipartisan agreement on the need for prescription drug coverage? Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2043)	1/15/2002 11:38:52 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15516

Corps of Engineers Relaxes Wetland Protections The Los Angeles Times January 15, 2002 E-mail story THE NATION By ELIZABETH SHOGREN and DEBORAH SCHOCH, TIMES STAFF WRITERS WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration weakened federal protections for wetlands on Monday, making it easier for developers to build on land where streams flow part of the year. This was one of several changes the Army Corps of Engineers made to wetland regulations that specify when developers can seek "nationwide permits," which are shortcuts that enable them to begin their projects more quickly and with fewer restrictions. For example, the new rules could allow a developer, using a shortcut permit, to fill in 1,000 feet of a 20-foot-wide seasonal stream. Under the old rules, the limit was 300 feet. The corps had proposed a more extensive rollback of wetland rules in its draft report in August but curtailed those plans amid intense criticism from inside and outside the government. Corps officials in Washington and Los Angeles said new rules represent a limited shift and that the agency is committed to protecting the health of the nation's waterways and wetlands. "The changes are quite minor," said John Studt, chief of regulations at the corps. Environmentalists disagree, calling the changes further proof that the Bush administration is systematically weakening rules created to protect the nation's dwindling supply of wetlands, swamps and stream beds. Wetlands are key to the welfare of fish and waterfowl and also help cleanse water and control flooding. The Clean Water Act gives the corps the authority to decide when and how to issue permits allowing developers to destroy wetlands and streams. Such fragile landscapes can be especially attractive to developers because they offer the allure of water views or access. But the United States already has lost more than half its historic wetlands, making the corps' power to grant permits a lightning rod for environmentalists. The new rule on so-called intermittent streams would allow a developer to fill more stream area with less red tape. This rule could have a significant effect in California, where wildlife and plants depend on the temporary flow of storm runoff and seasonal flows to stay alive. The corps also eased a rule requiring developers to protect or create one acre of wetlands for every acre they destroy. Instead, corps engineers will have the authority to waive the requirement altogether, or to allow developers to plant trees instead of restoring wetlands. "California in particular needs to be worried about these rule changes, because California has lost over 91% of our wetlands already, more than any other state," said Kevin Doyle, director of habitat conservation programs for the National Wildlife Federation's western field office. "When is the corps going to put its foot down?" Before the corps announced its plans, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency joined environmentalists in complaining that the new rules could endanger wetlands. The corps reinstated some of the environmental protections that had been removed in the draft version, which would have given district engineers the authority to allow quicker permitting for all streams--even ones that flow year-round. The agency also said it remained committed to the goal of preventing a net loss of wetlands. Although the agency gave its 37 district engineers leeway to let developers destroy existing wetlands without creating or restoring other wetlands elsewhere, it also ordered these same engineers to document that there would be no net loss of wetlands in their districts. Some districts are small, encompassing several counties, but others include several states. The Los Angeles district stretches east into New Mexico. Developers welcomed what they said is much-needed flexibility in the rules, and they said they are hoping the administration will continue to roll back onerous regulations. "California home builders need as much flexibility as possible to build homes," said Brian White, legislative representative for the California Building Industry Assn. "We look forward to working with the administration for more changes." Intermittent stream beds are filled by seasonal rainfall and ground water. About 10% of the Southern California streams feeding into the ocean are intermittent, according to the corps' L.A. office. Most of Southern California's streams are so-called ephemeral streams--dry washes that flow only after storms. Most of the state's intermittent streams are found in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges. Mark Durham, South Coast section chief in the regulatory branch of the corps' Los Angeles district office, defended the change in the rules, saying the old 300-foot limit on filling intermittent streams was impractical. * latimes.com Shogren reported from Washington, Schoch from Los Angeles.