Administrative Rule Change

[michaeledward]

I have seen a couple of articles recently concerning small wording changes in Administration policies and the affect of this changes on American citizens. This morning, it was an Administrative rule change allowing the return to a policy that in the 80's and 90's destroyed and or eliminated "700 miles" of mountain streams. As a fisherman, this was dis-heartening.

Are you aware of other such Administrative Rule Changes? What was the change? How will it affect you, your family or friends? What is the 'other side' of the rule change? Is there a benefit and to whom?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5728042/

In just over a decade, coal miners used the technique (mountaintop removal) to flatten hundreds of peaks across a region spanning West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee. Thousands of tons of rocky debris were dumped into valleys, permanently burying more than 700 miles of mountain streams. By 1999, concerns over the damage to waterways triggered a backlash of lawsuits and court rulings that slowed the industry's growth to a trickle.
Today, mountaintop removal is booming again, and the practice of dumping mining debris into streambeds is explicitly protected, thanks to a small wording change to federal environmental regulations. U.S. officials simply reclassified the debris from objectionable "waste" to legally acceptable "fill."

 

[kenpo tiger]

MichaelEdward,

I just read an article on Saturday about the Bush Administration changing things in a more subtle way: putting through new regulations, which apparently do not require Congressional approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html
So who still thinks this man isn't scary? KT

 

[Ceicei]

MichaelEdward,

I just read an article on Saturday about the Bush Administration changing things in a more subtle way: putting through new regulations, which apparently do not require Congressional approval.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/politics/14bush.html
So who still thinks this man isn't scary? KT

Every President has had administrative changes/regulations put through. Bush wasn't the only one....

- Ceicei

 

[kenpo tiger]

The article clearly states that. It also states that certain presidents exploit it to their political advantage, as Bush is. Still scary. Unless you have the time and patience, how can it be tracked? KT

 

[michaeledward]

Every President has had administrative changes/regulations put through. Bush wasn't the only one....

- Ceicei

I don't doubt that this statement is true. And certainly, any such rule changes can be 'spun' in a favorable, or less favorable light, depending on your point of view. As a democrat, this 'Waste/Fill' rule change is a very good thing for employment in West Virginia, it creates and continues high quality jobs where they are desperately needed. OR As a democrat, this 'Waste/Fill' rule change is horrible for the environment, we are altering a landscape that required hundreds of thousands of years to come into existance; the outcomes of which are unknowable.

What does this, or other rule changes, bring to our national culture? How should we balance the 'jobs/environment' debate in this one change?

What I am beginning to form an idea about, is the transition between presidents. It seems to me that as the Bush 43 Administration came into office, they made the decision that all of the work-in-progress of the Clinton Administration should just be scrapped ... they were going to re-evaluate all of the work done by Clinton's Adminstration; Economy, Monetary, Defense, Anti-Terrorism. The Bush team seemed to cancel all the work done by hardworking professional civil servants, and was going to start from scratch on all topics.

That's the story we hear from Richard Clarke, isn't it?
That's the story we hear from Paul O'Neil, isn't it?

Does anyone have any knowledge of Clinton behaving that way, when taking the reigns of power from Bush 41 ... or Bush 41 from Reagan?

Curiously, Mike

 

[kenpo tiger]

Since when did Clinton behave? KT