Log in

View Full Version : Obama scraps plans for pollution control, citing business interests



Nothing Human Is Alien
2nd September 2011, 17:34
Here we go again. This should come as no surprised to people here, but it's yet more proof against any argument that Obama represents anything other than capital.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of smog's main ingredient, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.

The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month -- and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.

The withdrawal of the proposed regulation marks the latest in a string of retreats by Obama in the face of Republican opposition. Last December, he shelved, at least until the end of 2012, his insistence that Bush-era tax cuts should no longer apply to the wealthy. Earlier this year he avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands for budget cuts. And this summer he acceded to more than a $1 trillion in spending reductions, with more to come, as the price for an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.

"But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government `stimulus' spending, and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

Major industry groups had lobbied hard for the White House to abandon the smog regulation, and applauded Friday's decision.

"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.

Republican lawmakers have blamed what they see as excessive regulations backed by the Obama administration for some of the country's economic woes, and House Republicans pledged this week to try to block four environmental regulations, including the one on some pollution standards, when they return after Labor Day.

But perhaps more than some of the other regulations under attack, the ground-level ozone standard is most closely associated with public health -- something the president said he wouldn't compromise in his regulatory review. Ozone is the main ingredient in smog, which is a powerful lung irritant that occasionally forces cancellation of school recesses, and causes asthma and other lung ailments.

Criticism from environmentalists, a core Obama constituency, was swift following the White House announcement.

"The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe," said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. "This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health."

In his statement, the president said that withdrawing the regulation did not reflect a weakening of his commitment to protecting public health and the environment.

"I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution," he said.

The decision mirrors one made by Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush. EPA scientists had recommended a stricter standard to better protect public health. Bush personally intervened after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997, but not as strong as federal scientists said was needed to protect public health.

The EPA under Obama proposed in January 2010 a range for the concentration of ground-level ozone allowed in the air -- from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. That's about equal to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-size swimming pool full of tennis balls.

Jackson, Obama's environmental chief, said at the time that "using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier."

Obama has scheduled a primetime speech to a joint session of Congress and the nation next Thursday night to outline plans he has made for combating high joblessness and spurring economic growth.

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

the last donut of the night
2nd September 2011, 17:38
funny how the creation of "american jobs", or employment, has become a synonym for big profits in contemporary american political jargon

Rusty Shackleford
2nd September 2011, 18:42
what boggles the mind is how some liberals still manage to support obama. not even on a class basis, but on a bullshit basis. the guy has gotten hardly anything done. the guy snaps under the pressure of the conservatives like none other. the guy deported more immigrant workers in his 3 years than bush did in 8.

Maybe conservatives are right, liberals have cognitive problems. :lol:

Nothing Human Is Alien
2nd September 2011, 19:06
I mean it hasn't been a secret before these, or even before he was elected:

"Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.” - "Don't Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy," Wall Street Journal. June 2, 2008.

“Surprisingly, given McCain's reputation as a hawk and Obama's as a peacenik, they don't differ much in their ideas... Both want to increase the size of the military and provide more training and equipment...” - The Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2008.

"...big capital would have no problem with an Obama presidency… [Top hedge fund managers] think he’s the man to do their work ... They’re confident he wouldn’t undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth.” - Left Business Observer, March 2008

Anyone who was politically aware would know that. It's not like there was a big secret conspiracy. It's not like corporations weren't pumping megabucks into his campaign funds.

There was a lot of empty rhetoric. And you can see how that could have had appeal for people who largely stayed out of politics and were simply sick of the way things were going for so long. You can also see how some folks could have been duped into supporting him on the basis of his skin tone, since petty-bourgeois black nationalist leaders have been pushing the "black faces in high places" garbage for decades. You can even see how union members could have been duped by his pledge to institute the EFCA... or how LGBT people could have been duped by the idea that he would enact all this sweeping legislation, or uninsured people by his pledge to enact universal healthcare...

But now? After all this?

For people who claim to be aware of the workings of capitalism, irreconcilable differences in interest between capital and labor, etc., there was no excuse before and there is absolutely none now. For others, the only bases of continued support for this guy left are things like self-interest (for union bureaucrats, etc.) willful delusion and quasi-religious fanaticism, or outright treachery (for "socialists," "anarchists" like Noam Chompsky, etc.).

piet11111
2nd September 2011, 19:22
Obama does not snap under republican pressure he fully supports their agenda.

He even wanted to go further with cuts then the republicans did.

GPDP
2nd September 2011, 19:53
Obama does not snap under republican pressure he fully supports their agenda.

He even wanted to go further with cuts then the republicans did.

Precisely. People need to stop peddling the line that Obama is spineless, as that implies that he's a well-meaning liberal that buckles under pressure. Fuck that. He's an out-and-out reactionary.

And even IF he was just a cowardly liberal, it still doesn't excuse supporting him or anybody attempting to get into the highest office of the biggest, most violent empire on earth.

Ocean Seal
2nd September 2011, 20:22
This man is obviously a socialist, and this is obviously a trick to further his socialist agenda.

MattShizzle
2nd September 2011, 22:07
Yeah, anyone who still thinks he's a Socialist is an idiot who has no idea what Socialism actually is. Sad part is he's probably the best candidate who has a real chance of winning next year because the Rethugs are so much worse. A choice between a reactionary and near-fascists.

piet11111
2nd September 2011, 22:25
We all know obama wanted a 4 trillion budget cut and put social security medicare and medicaid on the chopping block for the republicans.

Its a mystery to me how this guy still manages to pass as a left president.

RebelDog
2nd September 2011, 22:35
The job of president is to manage the welfare of the rich. It is not to reduce polution, counter climate change or to ensure US citizens have worthwhile employment, healthcare etc. If any of the severe problems facing US workers or indeed the question of species survival, war, poverty and inequality for the wider world are to be challenged, the last place we should look for action or inspiration is the office of the president of the United States. We should look in a mirror.

Nothing Human Is Alien
2nd September 2011, 23:31
"Socialism" in the context it's used against Obama in the U.S. is as much of a buzzword -- meaning un-American, foreign, etc. -- than anything.

Crux
3rd September 2011, 00:00
what boggles the mind is how some liberals still manage to support obama. not even on a class basis, but on a bullshit basis. the guy has gotten hardly anything done. the guy snaps under the pressure of the conservatives like none other. the guy deported more immigrant workers in his 3 years than bush did in 8.

Maybe conservatives are right, liberals have cognitive problems. :lol:
I can't help but think of the CPUSA. And then facepalm.

RadioRaheem84
3rd September 2011, 02:29
Maybe conservatives are right, liberals have cognitive problems. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Understatement of the year! :lol:

Os Cangaceiros
3rd September 2011, 03:33
Yeah, anyone who still thinks he's a Socialist is an idiot who has no idea what Socialism actually is. Sad part is he's probably the best candidate who has a real chance of winning next year because the Rethugs are so much worse. A choice between a reactionary and near-fascists.

I don't see how it could get much worse, honestly. He's just a continuation of Bush, except as far as the economy is concerned; in that respect he's risen up to a level of state crony capitalism that was never approached under Bush. I mean, when you look at the healthcare bill, the stimulus spending, the debt deal with the GOP and the bailout funding (TARP etc.)...it is astonishing.

And yet you'll still hear about "socialist" Obama. America: where reaction gets it's own reaction. :rolleyes:

Post-Something
3rd September 2011, 03:57
Guys...I think you're overreacting. USA is definitely leading the way when it comes to environmental concerns. This is just a small blip which barely matters and you know it.

piet11111
4th September 2011, 16:38
USA is definitely leading the way when it comes to creating environmental concerns.

Fixed ;)

Remember the unwillingness to deal with the BP oil-spill.

DaringMehring
4th September 2011, 17:01
Guys...I think you're overreacting. USA is definitely leading the way when it comes to environmental concerns. This is just a small blip which barely matters and you know it.

Good one.

ZeroNowhere
4th September 2011, 17:27
what boggles the mind is how some liberals still manage to support obama. not even on a class basis, but on a bullshit basis. the guy has gotten hardly anything done. the guy snaps under the pressure of the conservatives like none other. the guy deported more immigrant workers in his 3 years than bush did in 8.

Maybe conservatives are right, liberals have cognitive problems. :lol:
If you look at the recent obsession with Michele Bachmann here and elsewhere, it's pretty clear that the wheels are already in motion for 2012.

Rusty Shackleford
4th September 2011, 18:01
i really think a republican is going to be voted in. And were all goign to have to live with the CPUSA's line of "fighting the right" by voting Obama.

it almost makes me want to just do a "dont vote" campaign.

Red Commissar
4th September 2011, 19:59
What annoys me greatly is even with all this shit piling up on top of Obama, there are still liberal apologists who'll claim he's making compromises or the republicans are 'forcing' him into it. It's really getting quite pitiful, more so than usual.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna
4th September 2011, 23:13
there are still liberal apologists who'll claim he's making compromises.

It's like they really think a compromise between two shitty things somehow is a great thing.

Post-Something
5th September 2011, 01:03
Fixed ;)

Remember the unwillingness to deal with the BP oil-spill.

Actually, I'm being serious. I'm not gonna deny that the US goes a long way to contributing to pollution etc etc. But the fundamental point is that the US has 100% invested in new energy sources which will reduce the need for oil, gas and coal. Its basically been decided by NASA that the future of our energy problems will be solved by space based solar power which can be sent back to earth through microwaves. If anything people should be worried that people will remain too heavily reliant on the US for their energy needs in the future. I just hate it when people are so smug about these things and forget the fact that the US is doing it's hardest to actually move on from oil and gas. And who know how much this kind of regulation that is being proposed will cost the businesses anyway, anyone here? The point is, this is a totally unimportant bit of political maneuvering, and for you guys to just come out and say that

" it's yet more proof against any argument that Obama represents anything other than capital."

And other huge sweeping remarks just make it seem like you're just trying your hardest to criticize whats going on rather than actually care about the future of environmental and energy politics.