SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/25/2003 9:17:38 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793575
 
Washington Wrap
WASHINGTON, August 25, 2003

Dotty Lynch, Douglas Kiker, Steve Chaggaris and Clothilde Ewing of The CBS News Political Unit have the latest from the nation's capital.

Does Hart Have The Heart To Run?: Democrats are looking to unseat Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., in 2004 and are hoping former Sen. Gary Hart will be the one to dethrone him, reports the Denver Post.

The newspaper said that Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J. has had "several" conversations with Hart, according to committee officials.

"I have heard from people all over the state of Colorado that they would love someone of Gary Hart?s stature to take a look at the Senate race," Colorado Democratic Party chairman Chris Gates said.

Hart?s office wouldn?t say, however, if he?s at all interested in taking back the seat he held from 1975-87 and has been Campbell?s since 1993. "He won?t be commenting on that," his assistant told the Post.

Campbell aide Cinamon Watson took a jab at Hart saying, "It?s as simple as this ? It?s all monkey business," referring to the sex scandal that pretty much ended Hart's second run for the presidency in 1988. In 1987, he was photographed hanging out with model Donna Rice on a boat named Monkey Business shortly after he challenged the press, when asked about rumors of his infidelity, to follow him around.

In recent years, Hart has worked as a lawyer and as the co-chair of a commission that predicted a major terrorist attack on the U.S. prior to 9/11.

"He is a renowned figure when it comes to issues of national security, intelligence and homeland defense," said DSCC spokesman Mike Siegel. "By any person?s definition, he?s a complete statesman."

Democrats are desperate to find someone viable to challenge Campbell who easily won a second term in 1998, three years after switching to the Republican Party. Attorney General Ken Salazar and Rep. Mark Udall have both talked about jumping in, though neither has yet.

MoveOn Moves Into Texas Fight: MoveOn.org is raising money to support the 11 Democratic Texas state senators who?ve been camped out in New Mexico for almost a month to delay a vote on a GOP congressional redistricting plan.

MoveOn, which was formed to oppose the Clinton impeachment but has since morphed into an all-purpose lefty activist group, has raised more than $850,000 toward its $1 million goal in its "Defend Democracy" fundraising drive. The money will be used to help pay the mounting expense of the Democrats, who?ve been in Albuquerque since July 28 in order to deny the Texas Senate quorum in a special session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

In May, 50 Democrats from the Texas House fled to Oklahoma to temporarily quash the redistricting plan, which would likely give the GOP a huge advantage in the state delegation, which is currently divided 17-15 in the Democrats? favor. The House finally passed the plan in June and Perry called a special Senate session to consider the bill. The 30-day special session expires Tuesday, but Perry has pledged to call another one if needed.

MoveOn?s cash will certainly help the 11 Democrats, who have been staying a hotel for almost a month. A Texas political consultant working with MoveOn says 27,000 people have given money so far, including 2,000 Texans, the AP reports.



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/25/2003 10:26:04 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793575
 
The Best of Al Sharpton
The bravest thing he ever did.
By William Saletan and Ben Jacobs
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003, at 12:03 PM PT

Slate continues its short features on the 2004 presidential candidates. Previous series covered the candidates' biographies, buzzwords, agendas, and worldviews. This series assesses the story that supposedly shows each candidate at his best. Here's the one told by supporters of Al Sharpton?and what they leave out.

The story: "On May 23, 2001, I was sentenced to ninety days in prison. ? I was arrested for trespassing in Vieques, where I went to protest our naval activities there. I went on the advice of leaders in the Puerto Rican community who explained the damage [nearby Navy practice] bombings were doing to the land and people of Vieques. After hearing about it, I knew there was no way I could remain silent and do nothing. These same leaders stood with me during our protests following the brutalization of Abner Louima by New York City police officers. They were arrested right alongside me during our protests against the killing of Amadou Diallo. After hearing about the injustices in Vieques, I was compelled to stand with them. My move also strengthened a black/Latino coalition that went beyond politics and resonated on a street level." (Sharpton, Al on America, 2002, Page xiii)

Reality check: Most of the health concerns that inspired the Vieques protests were overblown. Contrary to statements by protesters, there was no statistical evidence that residents of Vieques had abnormal rates of cancer or infant mortality.

But verifying these claims was never Sharpton's principal concern, as his account shows. His concern was to "stand with" Puerto Rican leaders. Why? The New York mayoral election was approaching, and joining the Vieques protests was an easy way to mend fences with the Puerto Rican community, which Sharpton had alienated by playing hardball with Fernando Ferrer, a mayoral candidate of Puerto Rican descent. By getting arrested and going to prison, Sharpton got a constant stream of favorable publicity from Spanish language media outlets in New York.

On the other hand, Sharpton's imprisonment did increase public pressure against the bombing range, and President Bush ordered it to be shut down by May 2003.
William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent.
Ben Jacobs is a Slate intern.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/26/2003 5:53:44 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793575
 
Bush 'Compassion' Agenda: An '04 Liability?
By ELISABETH BUMILLER - [The New York Times]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - President Bush is running for re-election as a "compassionate conservative" who has sought to bring a new Republican approach to poverty and other social ills. Indeed, his campaign Web site is lush with a "compassion photo gallery" showing him reading to schoolchildren, helping out at a soup kitchen and visiting an AIDS treatment center in Africa.

But supporters, some administration officials among them, acknowledge that Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservative" agenda has fallen so far short of its ambitious goals, in a number of cases undercut by pressure from his conservative backers, that they fear he will be politically vulnerable on the issue in 2004.

At the same time, some religious supporters of Mr. Bush say they feel betrayed by promises he made as a candidate and now, they maintain, has broken as president.

"After three years, he's failed the test," said one prominent early supporter, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fights poverty.

Mr. Wallis said Mr. Bush had told him as president-elect that "I don't understand how poor people think," and appealed to him for help by calling himself "a white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." Now, Mr. Wallis said, "his policy has not come even close to matching his words."

Joshua B. Bolten, White House budget director and formerly Mr. Bush's chief domestic policy adviser, responded in an interview last week by saying that "I think that is one of the most unfair criticisms that has been leveled against the president."

At issue is Mr. Bush's willingness to demand financing from Congress on his signature "compassionate conservative" issues, like education reform and AIDS, with the same energy he has spent to fight for tax cuts and the Iraq war.

Critics say the pattern has been consistent: The president, in eloquent speeches that make headlines, calls for millions or even billions of dollars for new initiatives, then fails to follow through and push hard for the programs on Capitol Hill.

On one central piece of such legislation, the so-called faith-based bill to help religious charities, Mr. Bush, after two years of objections from Democrats, retreated this spring and agreed to strip the bill of provisions specifically related to religious groups. Instead, it now largely offers tax incentives to encourage giving to charities of all kinds.

On a proposal this summer to extend a $400-a-child tax credit to low-income families, Mr. Bush at first demanded that Congress appropriate the money, then backed off in the face of opposition from his conservative allies in the House, most notably the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. The issue is now bottled up in a dispute between the House and the more moderate Senate, and several Republican senators have called on Mr. Bush to step in and break the impasse.

Financing for another item on Mr. Bush's compassion agenda, the national volunteer program called AmeriCorps, faltered this summer under similar opposition from Mr. DeLay. Although Mr. Bush forcefully called for expanding that Clinton-era program in his 2002 State of the Union address, he was largely silent last month amid objections to a $100 million emergency infusion that it needed to maintain its current level of operations. The House rejected that spending, leaving AmeriCorps with an uncertain future.

"Even the president is not omnipotent," Mr. Bolten said of the House opposition to the AmeriCorps money. "Would that he were. He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it's not, and he's glad it's a democracy."

Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who called on the White House to intercede with Republicans to help AmeriCorps, rejects that argument, saying Mr. Bush has simply been unwilling to spend political capital by standing up to Mr. DeLay.

White House officials say that given difficult political terrain, Mr. Bush has done well. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said the president "takes every occasion to publicly announce how important these compassion agenda programs are to him." On some issues, Mr. Towey added, "Congress will go a lot farther on funding what he asks for than others."

Education reform is one compassion issue that has left Democrats particularly bitter. In January 2002, with great fanfare, Mr. Bush signed his No Child Left Behind Act, a landmark bill that mandated annual testing of children in Grades 3 through 8 and greatly enlarged the federal role in public education. Democrats like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of California were crucial to its passage, and say they went along with the president on his assurances that the government would give states enough money to comply with it.

But the White House has now asked for $12 billion to continue that financing next year, $6 billion less than the legislation authorizes.

"We raised this in the Oval Office, we raised this in our meetings with the president," Mr. Miller said. "He assured us that the funds would be there if the reforms were there. This is calculated conservatism, and they calculate just as much as they can get away with. You can dress it all up, but at the end of the day he broke his promise. It's not much more complicated than that."

Mr. Bolten, the White House budget director, responded by saying that the president had asked for "some very substantial increases" in education spending ? in fact, such spending has risen during his administration ? and that the government's budget deficit "would be really way out of control" if the White House asked that all bills be financed to the limits allowed by law.

Democrats have also been angry over Mr. Bush's AIDS legislation, saying that on this issue, too, he has delivered less than promised. Last month, they note, the president toured Africa and heavily promoted his recently enacted bill to fight global AIDS, a measure that authorizes spending of $3 billion a year for five years.

"I'm here to say you will not be alone in your fight," Mr. Bush said on July 12 in Nigeria, to applause. "In May, I signed a bill that authorizes $15 billion for the global fight on AIDS."

"The House of Representatives and the United States Senate," the president added, "must fully fund this initiative, for the good of the people on this continent of Africa."

But that very week in Washington, the White House asked for only $2 billion, $1 billion less than authorized, for the first of the five years.

Representative Jim Kolbe, the Arizona Republican who is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign assistance, argued that $2 billion was more than enough for the outset of the program. "I think we're showing sensible compassion," he said.

White House officials say that in September, after Mr. Bush returns to Washington from a monthlong working vacation at his Texas ranch, he will move to resolve differences between House and Senate bills that would add a drug benefit to Medicare. Mr. Bush, Republicans say, is eager for a bipartisan piece of legislation in time for 2004 that he can cite as a part of his compassion agenda.

The president will also promote his smaller compassion proposals, like his call for $50 million a year for three years to provide mentors to children of prisoners, a program for which Congress provided only $10 million in 2003. Mr. Bush will also push his new Access to Recovery drug treatment plan, which calls for $200 million a year for three years; so far, the House has agreed to provide $100 million for the program next year, but a Senate committee has voted it nothing.

The president, his aide Mr. Towey said, has pioneered a new Republican approach to social programs, "and like any pioneer, it's tough going."
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/26/2003 6:26:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793575
 
Study Confirms 'Stakeholders' Gave Advice to Energy Panel
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE - [The New York Times]
August 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - The General Accounting Office issued its final report today on how Vice President Dick Cheney came up with the administration energy policy two years ago. The accounting office said it had to piece together scraps of information from other sources because the vice president's panel had been so unresponsive.

The report by the agency, the investigative arm of Congress, plows old ground but for the first time officially confirms news reports and expands on them in saying the panel received advice from "a variety of federal energy stakeholders," with "industry leaders submitting detailed policy recommendations."

The report said a principal figure on the panel, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, had "discussed national energy policy with chief executive officers of petroleum, electricity, nuclear, coal, chemical and natural gas companies, among others."

"Several corporations and associations, including Chevron, the National Mining Association and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association," the report added, "provided the secretary of energy with detailed policy recommendations."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Abraham, Jeanne T. Lopatto, said he had been assigned to examine energy production.

"It should come as a surprise to no one," Ms. Lopatto said, "that the secretary of energy met with energy officials throughout the development of the national energy plan."

The report said the energy task force met with "nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists."

But the extent to which they shaped the panel's report could not be determined, the accounting office said.

The investigators said the panel also received information "to a more limited degree" from academic experts, policy organizations, environmental advocacy groups and private citizens.

Mr. Cheney submitted the report to President Bush on May 16, 2001. It included more than 100 proposals to increase energy supplies, recommending additional oil and gas drilling and saying the nation needed to build 1,300 to 1,900 electric plants to meet the projected energy demand over the next 20 years.

Some recommendations have been incorporated in the administration's energy bill, which has taken on new urgency since the nation suffered its biggest blackout this month.

Mr. Cheney's office repeatedly rebuffed the accounting office in the quest for information about how the energy plan was developed. The office maintained that executive deliberations were confidential.

The accounting agency sued in federal court but lost on jurisdictional grounds.

In February, Comptroller General David M. Walker, who oversees the accounting office, declined to appeal that decision, effectively abandoning the effort to obtain information from the administration.

Since then, the accounting office has been piecing together information from other sources to complete the Congressional request that it determine who Mr. Cheney's panel met, how it formulated policy and how much the effort cost.

In releasing this final report, Mr. Walker, who is in the 5th year of his 15-year term, said today in an interview, "This was the first time in the history of the agency that we were absolutely stonewalled and the first time during my tenure that we haven't been able to reach a reasonable accommodation with the subject."

He said this was also the first time that he had to issue a report saying the scope of an investigation had been limited.

"We were not able to obtain all the information we felt we needed to discharge our responsibilities," Mr. Walker said.

Still, he said, he would monitor other suits that seek access to the panel's deliberations and would be prepared to act. But, Mr. Walker noted, the litigation "is likely to go on for years."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/26/2003 7:07:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793575
 
I have always disliked Quindlen.

August 26, 2003

Blackout Blues
Misplaced guilt over the outage
By Cathy Young - Reason

The blackout that struck the eastern United States and Canada two weeks ago could be seen as evidence of how frighteningly vulnerable our infrastructure is. This time, it wasn't a terrorist act; who knows what could happen next year or next month?even if, so far, terrorists seem to be interested in inflicting large-scale casualties rather than causing serious disruptions of the economy and of everyday life? Yet, it could also be seen as a striking example of grace under pressure. Instead of panic, violence, and looting, there was, for the most part, composure and solidarity. True, this generally dignified response has been somewhat compromised by the unsightly blame game between Republicans and Democrats. And then there are some who would blame the American way of life itself: too much technology, too much comfort, too much prosperity.

No, we're not talking about the Unabomber with his anti-industrial manifesto, or about some wild-eyed radical environmentalist group. This view comes from Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen, a mainstream liberal commentator with a soccer-mom image that is the very opposite of wild-eyed radicalism.

Quindlen's comments had disturbing overtones of gloating over this grandiose failure of technology: "What you saw time and time again was hubris brought low, people accustomed to instant communication without phone service, people accustomed to flying anywhere and at any time grounded at the airport." There was also some finger-wagging at Americans for not reacting with proper humility and introspection. "No talk of changing behavior, of finding a balance," rues Quindlen. "Once the biggest power outage in history had begun, the only concern was for getting the juice back as quickly as possible. There was a faint undercurrent of revoked privilege."

Well, of course people's primary concern was getting things back to normal. But all in all, people coped remarkably well with some very serious inconveniences. And yes, we need to give more thought to contingency plans so that we are not quite so dependent on electricity (for instance, there ought to be a backup system for opening doors in hotel rooms without a card key so that a power loss does not leave guests stranded in the lobby). But changing behavior? How exactly? Should we give up instant communication? Flying? Air conditioning?

Some of Quindlen's thinking can be gleaned from the fact that in the same column, she chides suburbanites who have a problem with bears. The real problem, she says, is not a bear problem but a "people problem": after all, the bears were here first, and all we do is "build unattractive structures atop their former homes." Quindlen complains that Americans' houses have gotten too big, and suggests that instead of issuing bear-hunting permits, the state of New Jersey should impose a permanent moratorium on building permits. How very humanitarian.

It's fine, of course, for a culture to take a critical look at itself and its assumptions. But some on the left seem to question the very right of modern Western civilization to exist, either in the face of people who hate us, or in nature.

Critics of environmentalism have long claimed that environmentalist philosophy has a human-hating streak. Over a decade ago, California National Park Service biologist David M. Graber wrote, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Biologist Paul Erlich has described the birth of a baby in an advanced industrial country as a "disaster" for the Earth.

The mindset that regards the blackout as a well-deserved blow to our "hubris," and a wake-up call for us to change our lifestyles, may not be nearly as vicious. But it has the same overtones of smugness combined with self-flagellation?and a faint streak of the same antipathy to humanity.

Like everything else, technological progress has its downside, including our dependence on technology. When we lose electrical power, we fare worse than people who have never had it. But the inconvenience is a small price to pay for vast gains in human health and welfare. There is no "rejoining nature," if that means giving up the things we have devised to protect ourselves from nature's harshness. There are, however, ways to use resources more efficiently. But Americans shouldn't be told to feel guilty because they have a good life.

Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column appeared in the Boston Globe on August 25, 2003.



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/26/2003 9:07:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793575
 
'Road map' for peace hits dead end

August 25, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

For five hours after the Baghdad bombing of United Nations headquarters, there was a flicker of hope high in the U.S. government that the atrocity might unite the civilized world in rebuilding Iraq. Then came the West Bank bombing of a bus filled with Orthodox Jews the next day in Jerusalem. Word was passed from Washington to Israel, expressing hope that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not overreact.

To no avail. The targeted killing of a Hamas political leader by Israel fulfilled the State Department's worst fears. The Middle East is a shambles. Global rage over Baghdad has been eclipsed by repercussions of Jerusalem. The unspoken fear is that with the road map for peace at death's door, Sharon will lash out militarily against Syria and even Iran to seek guaranteed security of Israel at the cost of the entire region set ablaze.

The flames already have consumed predictions by Sharon and George W. Bush of what an Iraqi change of regime would accomplish. The Israeli prime minister repeatedly told Americans that Saddam Hussein's removal would cripple Palestinian terrorists. After the fall of Baghdad, the president told associates that Sharon ''owes me big'' and would now prove amenable to peace plans and a Palestinian state.

Sharon did, without enthusiasm, accept the road map and, even more reluctantly, the June 29 cease-fire. When Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed out to Sharon two weeks ago that no Israelis were dying thanks to the agreement he so much disliked, the old Israeli general grudgingly agreed that was true.

While the Israelis contend that suicide bombings broke the truce, Palestinian officials respond that these murders were precipitated by targeted assassinations. Whichever side reinstituted the cycle of violence, it is welcomed by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremist groups and accepted as a necessary cost of freedom by the present Israeli government.

Not even high-ranking Americans who are committed to the peace process will publicly condemn Sharon for using a U.S.-produced aircraft to assassinate the Hamas leader. Powell has not uttered a word of criticism.

Deepening the despair of Palestinian moderates, slain Hamas political leader Ismail Abu Shanab was not involved in planning suicide bombings and was an advocate and negotiator of the cease-fire. Israel refuses to make any distinction between one member of Hamas and another, but Palestinians feel that seeking out Shanab sent a message.

The fallout is far-reaching. Egyptian security adviser Osama el-Baz has been on the West Bank pressuring Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to crack down on terrorist groups (reflecting pressure on Egypt by the United States). Indeed, before Shanab's assassination, Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan was completing plans to confiscate weapons from terrorist groups. Those plans are postponed indefinitely.

Abbas, with a small base of Palestinian support, faces conflicting demands of extremists and the Israeli government. Still, Powell is trying to prop him up as the fragile hope for reviving the peace process. Powell's call for Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat to help Abbas, misinterpreted as turning back to the old terrorist leader, actually was an effort to get Arafat to turn over his remaining security forces.

Without a road map, is more force the answer for the United States? The normally sensible former Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger argued on CNN last Wednesday that American forces should attack Hezbollah and Hamas outside Israel: ''I really do think we have got to become more engaged in dealing with the terrorists in and around that area.... The Baca Valley just beckons to us to go in there and drop a few bombs and see if we can't get a few people out of the way.''

That may fit Sharon's dreams of cleaning up the Middle East, but his blueprint so far is not working that well. While Bismarck's blood and iron united Germany, the formula is poorly designed for peace in the Middle East.



To: JohnM who wrote (5931)8/26/2003 9:56:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793575
 
Scratch a "Shortage" and you will find a liberal passing laws for a Lawyer to administer.

Reg Problem
The EPA and the Phoenix gas shortage.

By Mark Brnovich - National Review

PHOENIX, ARIZONA - There seems to be plenty of finger-pointing going on, but ultimately, little is being said about the actual reason for the current gas-shortage in Phoenix. Everyone seems to be aware that a pipeline broke and we have to wait for federal approval before gas can begin flowing. But, isn't anyone wondering why this problem is confined to the Phoenix metropolitan area?

The major reason for our fuel shortage is a result of changes to the Clean Air Act in 1990. Specifically, the changes included requiring the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in "nonattainment" areas. Our metropolitan region is such an area. Thus, in an effort to avoid losing transportation funding, state laws were passed and we were forced to adopt measures which included the use of oxygenated gas.

Oxygenates in gasoline include MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) and ethanol. The use of such oxygenated fuels to improve air quality, however, is a dubious prospect at best. A 1997 study by the White House National Science and Technology Council and a more recent study by the National Research Council both found that oxygenated fuels are less effective in reducing pollution and smog than previously believed. Such fuels are also not as readily available as standard gasoline. Because they are scarcer and more expensive to make, they cost more at the pump.

Second, oxygenated fuels are not as efficient as standard fuel. Thus, consumers are forced to buy and use more gasoline because of lower fuel economy. Third, there have been serious health issues linked to the use of MTBE in gasoline. These concerns include contamination of ground water supplies.

Even embattled California Governor Gray Davis recognized the problems associated with the use of oxygenated fuels. In 1999, he issued an executive order requiring phaseout of MTBE by the end of 2002. Unfortunately, the federal government denied California's request for a waiver from the federal requirements. Ultimately, Governor Davis sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to block the use of reformulated gasoline. Just last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the EPA abused its discretion in refusing to consider a waiver.

The refusal of the EPA to consider any reasonable alternatives should not be a shock to anyone familiar with the agency. It is an agency with over 17,000 employees and since its inception in 1970, the majority of administrators and assistant administrators have been lawyers. Accordingly, it has promulgated thousands of pages of regulations and "guidance" documents. The regulations alone create stack of papers two feet high.

Not surprisingly, the public wants an answer. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has even suggested "price gouging" statutes. But economists largely concur that such price controls are a bad idea, and in any case, they do not address the larger problem. Instead, our elected officials should focus their energy on necessary changes in the EPA.

First, the ability of the EPA to promulgate or issue regulations should be greatly curtailed. This can be done by requiring that every regulation be approved by a vote of Congress before its final approval. This ensures that legislators, who are accountable to voters, are ultimately responsible for making decisions, as opposed to federal bureaucrats.

Second, the EPA should be required to allow states to "opt-out" or receive waivers from environmental requirements. As is the case in welfare reform, states should be allowed to come up with innovative or creative methods for solving local problems. If temporary waivers are necessary, the EPA should be required to authorize such waivers in hours, not days or weeks. In the current shortage, such an approval would have resulted in gas flowing more quickly into the valley.

Ultimately, EPA-imposed regulations on states and localities are another example of regulatory delegation gone awry. Congress should be reminded that broad delegations of power to federal agencies are constitutionally suspect and insulate unelected bureaucrats from accountability. As the current gas shortage illustrates, when an unaccountable federal agency imposes its will on a state, there are often unintended consequences. Just ask anyone waiting in line for gas.

? Mark Brnovich is director of the Goldwater Institute's Center for Constitutional Government.