[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Sagady's State of the State message

Enviro-Mich message from L Livingston <redwingfan@teleweb.net>

But it's OK for right wing radicals to slander environmentalists, right?
Lynn Livingston

Patrick Diehl wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from Patrick Diehl <patmec@voyager.net>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alex Sagady:
> No one dislikes John Engler more than I do, for a myriad of reasons.  I
> think, however, that you do a significant disservice to not only the
> environmental community but to the larger community of folks involved with
> public policy formation when you resort to juvenile name-calling.  I am
> embarrassed to know someone who begins his e-mail postings with "fat-boy
> draft-dodging guv."  Impressive display of professionalism, Alex.
> Pat Diehl
> At 01:26 PM 1/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Enviro-Mich message from asagady@sojourn.com
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >As we hear of an election year "conversion" of John Engler on
> >the environmental issue, let us not forget the hostile/anti-environment
> >posture of our fat-boy draft dodging guv from his speech as
> >a "darling" of the Washington DC based Competitive Enterprise
> >Institute.....   Read this to know the true John Engler, which I'm reposting
> >for the benefit of those who have joined the list in the last year....
> >
> >George Weeks, political columnist for the Detroit News, has been
> >trying to "rehabilitate" Engler's environmental record.   I'm convinced
> >that Engler wants to be President; but he can't do it without having
> >some kind of raproachment on the environmental issue.    Given Engler's
> >record, Michigan enviros should deny him this or otherwise potentially
> face an
> >Engler White House in 2000 or 2004.... not a good way to face the
> >new millenia!!
> >
> >For the younger folks out there, Warren T Brookes is a deceased former
> >Detroit News opinion columnist who had a direct line to anti-environmental
> >PR from all of the Washington trade associations and who relentlessly
> >ridiculed and
> >criticized all manner of environmental protection and conservation efforts
> in
> >his columns.
> >
> >=======
> >
> >
> >                        Warren T. Brookes Fellowship Memorial Dinner
> >                             Remarks by Governor John Engler
> >                                   Tuesday, November 19,1996
> >
> >
> >   As you may know, Joe Olson, before he took the post of Insurance
> >Commissioner in my administration, was Chair of the Board of Directors
> >at the Mackinac Center -- a Michigan-based think tank that we call the CEI
> >of the midwest.
> >
> >   Actually, if Warren Brookes were alive today, I am certain he would be
> >thrilled
> >at the degree to which idea-generating organizations like CEI, the Cato
> >Institute
> >and the Heritage Foundation are leading the debate in Washington.
> >
> >   Certainly, he would be proud -- extremely proud -- of the scholars who
> have
> >so ably filled the Warren Brookes   Fellowship in Environmental Journalism.
> >Beginning with Ron Bailey, and continuing with Michael Fumento, Michelle
> >Malkin and James Bovard, these Warren Brookes fellows have represented
> >the epitome of excellent scholarship,  thoughtful analysis and outstanding
> >writing.
> >
> >   Indeed, every time I pick up a newspaper like the Wall Street Journal and
> >see a column by a scholar such as Jim   Bovard, I think of Warren and know
> >that he lives on -- not just through the CEI fellows but through all of us.
> >
> >   We share his belief in the power of free markets. We share his
> skepticism of
> >bureaucratic science -- BS as Warren used to call it. And we share his
> >lifelong commitment to the principle that people make better decisions --
> >for their businesses,  for their families and for the world they live in --
> >better decisions than government ever could.
> >
> >   Warren Brookes was an honest broker in the marketplace of ideas
> >and information. And while we miss his voice twice-a-week in the paper,
> >we certainly continue to benefit every day from the power of his ideas and
> >the diversity of his intellect.
> >
> >   I wish that Warren would have been alive to see Republicans take
> >control of Congress. What I wish even more would have been to see
> >the fun Warren would have had skewering the Clinton administration -
> >on issues ranging from his pre-election land grab in Utah to the
> >225,000 pages of rules that have been added to the federal register
> >over the past   four years.
> >
> >   Considering the withering criticism Warren had for a previous
> >administration, we can only imagine what he would have said about
> >the current president. Recall this example of what Warren said about the
> >1990 debate over the Clean Air Act:
> >
> >        ". . . in the current environmental debate on Capitol Hill, the
> >collective
> >hole in the White House and  legislative heads may be larger and more
> >permanent than the one that shows up every fall in the ozone layer
> >over the Antarctic -- and more dangerous to our economic and ecological
> >health."
> >
> >   Just imagine what Warren might have written about the Clinton-Gore
> >mantra -- "protect Medicare, Medicaid, education  and the environment."
> >Or what he would have said about a vice president who has a portrait of
> >Rachel Carson hanging in his office.
> >
> >   Remember, this is the same vice president, who is his 1992 book,
> >Earth in the Balance, said that the automobile was a mortal threat to our
> >national security. In addition, I bet that Warren would have been the first
> >to point out that the  president's so-called bridge to the 21st century is
> >a toll bridge.
> >
> >   In a world where too many people get their news from Oprah Winfrey
> >and Geraldo Rivera, we need more journalists  like Warren Brooks. And
> >fortunately, more journalists -- like John Stossel, last year's speaker at
> this
> >dinner -- are rising to the challenge.
> >
> >   Just yesterday, for example, two op-eds in the Wall Street Journal,
> >one by Julian Simon, the other by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker,
> >debunked for the the umpteenth time -- the myths about a population
> >explosion and fear of famine currently being propagated at the U.N.
> >Food Summit in Rome.
> >
> >   We learn from their able scholarship that people worldwide are better
> >fed living longer and healthier lives. More  importantly, we learned that
> >continuously improving farming methods are more than capable of feeding
> >a growing world  population.
> >
> >   As the father of triplet daughters, I had been concemed that I had
> >unwittingly contributed to an impending worldwide  disaster. I was
> >especially concerned because my little Maggie does not like to
> >share her food. Let me tell -- no one is   going to take apple juice away
> >from Maggie.
> >
> >   Seriously, there is no doubt that when it comes to environmental
> >joumalism, those who follow in Warren's footsteps are  outnumbered
> >by those who don't. But we have an ally on our side that usually wins
> >in the end -- the truth. And I have   developed a method of getting back
> > at the fearmongers, especially liberal fearmongers
> >
> >   I'll say to them, "Did you know that one in four liberals is at risk of
> >developing cancer and that one in five liberals will die from it?"
> >Of course, I don't tell them that conservatives -- indeed all Americans
> >-- face the same risk of cancer.
> >
> >   I should note, however, that Warren wrote about much more than
> >environmental issues. Often, he wrote about a subject dear to my hear
> >-- taxes, and the economic benefits of cutting them. For example, he
> >wrote in his column in June 1991:
> >
> >        "One of the genius strokes of the U.S. Constitution is that it
> >provides the one thing most governmental  systems lack, namely
> >competition within government itself. The federalist system still allows
> >states to pursue varying tax, fiscal and regulatory policies that strongly
> >influence their economic activity. This means states  automatically
> >become 'laboratories' for economic policy. Unfortunately, liberal think
> >tanks have all but  ignored this fertile field for research -- and with
> >good reason: There is a virtually unblemished record of
> >strong economic performance in low-tax states, and vice-versa.
> >
> >   As usual, Warren was right. And Michigan's success story proves it.
> >
> >   Just a few months after I became Michigan's governor, I invited
> >Warren, Tom Bray and several other friends over for dinner. At the
> >time, Michigan's economy was mired in recession. Unemployment
> >was approaching ten percent.
> >
> >   The state budget was nearly $2 billion in the red and the deficit
> >was growing. At the same time, taxes -- especially property taxes
> >-- were skyrocketing and welfare was becoming a way of life for
> >more and more families. A tent city of  protestor had camped out
> >on the lawn of the State Capitol.
> >
> >   Twenty-one tax cuts later, Michigan is a far different place. Twenty-one
> >tax cuts have put more than $6.5 billion back into the wallets and
> >purses of Michigan taxpayers. I'm talking about the biggest property
> >tax cut in history, cutting income taxes, raising exemptions, eliminating
> >inheritance taxes and most taxes on pensions. We're even phasing
> >out Michigan's capital gains tax.
> >
> >   The result has been an economic turnaround that is the envy of
> >America. Our unemployment rate has been below five  percent
> >every month this year. In fact, we are headed for the lowest
> >unemployment rate since 1969.
> >
> >   That's not the only good news. Since 1991, Michigan employers
> >have created more than 500,000 new jobs. Over the same period,
> >personal income in Michigan has climbed more than 25 percent --
> >the fastest growth rate in the nation.
> >
> >   Since 1994, more than 100,000 families have left the welfare
> >rolls and achieved independence. Michigan's budget has been
> >balanced five years in a row and our state's Rainy Day Fund
> >is at an historic high of more than $1 billion.
> >
> >   And I should note that we have accomplished all of this, not
> >inspired by Washington, but in spite of Washington . . .
> >
> >   . . . in spite of the biggest tax increase in history
> >
> >   . . . in spite of two vetoes of welfare reform
> >
> >   . . . and in spite of an EPA that has increasingly overstepped
> >its bounds and usurped the lawmaking responsibilities of Congress
> >and stepped on the state's ability to implement environmental reform.
> >
> >   Indeed, I am reminded of a story that NYU law professor
> >David Schoenbrod tells in his book, Power Without Responsibility,
> >about the battles between Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme
> >Court concerning the limits of federal  power.
> >
> >   Schoenbrod -- who is also a scholar at the Manhattan and Cato
> >Institutes -- cites a case in which the Supreme Court struck down
> >several provisions of FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act --
> >legislation creating a federal agency to  write and enforce
> >its own laws dictating wages, prices and production schedules.
> >At the time, Justice Louis Brandies told  a top Roosevelt aide:
> >
> >        "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want
> >you to go back and tell the president that we are not going to let
> >this government centralize everything. It's come to an end. As for
> >your young men, you call them together and tell them to get out
> >of Washington -- tell them to go home to the states. That is where
> >they must do their work."
> >
> >   My friends, we have been doing the work in Michigan. As governor
> >of a state with more than 3,000 miles of coastline on the nation's
> >most precious fresh water resources -- the Great Lakes -- I know
> >that the quality of our natural resources directly affect the lives an
> >livelihoods of all our citizens.
> >
> >   I believe strongly that a healthy environment and a healthy economy
> >are mutually sustainable. You cannot have one without the other. On
> > a microeconomic level, I also believe that good environmental policy
> >is good business. However,  the unfortunate reality id that government
> >policies designed to protect or to clean up the environment that do not
> >recognize this basic principle of mutual sustainability are usually
> >counterproductive.
> >
> >   For example, consider the federal Superfund program. Rather
> >than directing limited resources to achieve the most cost effective
> >reduction in health risk to the public, Superfund has spawned endless
> >lawsuits and legal wrangling, much-delayed and ever more costly
> >cleanups, and contaminated sites that remain unused, undeveloped
> >and a threat to  public health. Indeed, I am told that as much as 80
> >percent of the funding for this program goes to pay lawyers.
> >Maybe  we ought to rename Superfund the "Superlawyer Fund."
> >
> >   I am especially concerned about the program's explicit failure
> >to rehabilitate urban "brownfield" sites and to make them available
> >for redevelopment. In a scientific survey of Michigan's environmental;
> >problems. The inability to reuse such urban sites in favor of suburban
> >and rural "Greenfield" was identified as our state's top concern.
> >
> >   The current CERCLA liability scheme of strict, joint and several
> >and retroactive liability is part of the problem. While the system
> >is labeled "polluter's pay," in reality it is "deep pockets pay." As
> >a result, redevelopment efforts are stymied as cleanup costs skyrocket
> >and liability disputes escalate.
> >
> >   Until last year, Michigan's cleanup rules had mirrored the
> >federal CERCLA liability scheme and the lack of results, especially
> >in our inner cities, was all too evident. With tlie support of a wide
> >geographical range of city mayors, in June 1995, I signed legislation
> >that replaced strict liability for owners and operators with a liability
> >standard based on causation.
> >
> >   This approach retains the concept that the polluters should pay by
> >still holding the parties that caused the problem liable for cleaning it up.
> >We also enacted a blanket exemption from liability for existing contaminated
> >culpable purchasers and occupants of contaminated property.
> >
> >   In addition, we have strengthened and expanded liability protections
> >available to lenders who foreclose on contaminated property. I strongly
> >encourage identical liability protections be included in Superfund in
> >each of theses areas. Such reforms are vital to state and city efforts
> >to encourage reuse of contaminated property.
> >
> >   Further encouragement can be provided by cleanup standards based
> >on land use. Recent reforms in Michigan allow us to  use containment
> > remedies and land use controls in lieu of performing costly remediations.
> > Combined with a single risk  level and specific soil and groundwater
> >cleanup criteria, we can develop remedial action plans for sites of
> >environmental  contamination far more quickly than Records of
> > Decision can be developed under Superfund.
> >
> >   Our new cleanup standards allow us to use our limited resources to get
> >the best protection for our citizens. Indeed, we  estimate that these
> reforms
> >will reduce the cost of cleaning a site by up to 50 percent while still
> >providing fully protective  remedies.
> >
> >   The results so far have been impressive. A study of our reforms that was
> >released earlier this year showed an increase in   investment by the private
> >sector of more than $220 million and the creation of more than 2,300 jobs
> >in redevelopment  projects.
> >
> >   In contract, on the federal level, under the current Superfund law we
> have
> >the worst of all possible worlds: Burdensome cleanup rules and
> >considerable duplication between the federal and state government
> >serve to waste money, delay cleanup projects and deny accountability
> >to the public.
> >
> >   Superfund is only one example of a federal environmental policy
> >that is counterproductive, costly, and cumbersome to the states. I wish
> >I had time to discuss all my concerns with management of the EPA, but
> >let me just briefly highlight a few.
> >
> >   First, the Clinton administration has proposed stricter clean air
> >standards that threaten to put virtually every major metropolitan area
> >in Michigan and America into noncompliance. The result would be
> >severe restrictions on economic growth in those areas, especially
> >the very same inner cities that desperately need growth and new jobs.
> >
> >   Second, the EPA has launched an all-out assault on states that have
> >enacted environmental audit laws that encourage companies to
> >perform such audits and promptly report and correct violations. In fact,
> >the EPA has punished such states by interfering in the state delegation
> >of federal programs like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and
> >other  environmental statutes.
> >
> >   Heavyhanded, autocratic, and unelected bureaucrats at the EPA
> >are telling the states that we are guilty until proven innocent. Even
> >worse, we most likely face similar punishments for implementing
> >emissions trading programs and wetlands mitigation banks. To
> >the EPA, no good deed by the states goes unpunished.
> >
> >   Third, bowing to pressure from environmental extremists,
> >the EPA recently took unprecedented steps to stall a solution
> >mining project in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, delaying the project
> >for at least 18 months and costing at least 100 jobs.
> >
> >   The reversal of EPA policy came as a shock to the mining
> >compacy, the workers and state officials, for the EPA had been
> >working closely with them for two years and had previously
> >approved the project.
> >
> >   The irony is that an idle copper mine threatens nearby
> >Lake Superior. An active solution mine would permanently
> >protect the lake. The end result of the EPA's meddling? Jobs
> >lost and a Great Lake threatened.
> >
> >   Fourth, a recently leaked memo from the EPA reveals a secret
> >Clinton plan to raise the federal gas tax by 50 cents,  increase CAFE
> >standards and tighten auto emission restrictions -- all without the approval
> >of Congress. I would call this secret plan a disaster for Michigan --
> >the nation's number one auto-producing state!
> >
> >   Using an obscure section of legislation enacted in the early 1960's,
> >the author of this memo claims the president has the authority to
> >administratively
> >enact such measures based on national security concerns. That tells me
> >we need more CEI  fellows standing careful watch over an administration
> >that accepts environmental extremism as gospel and rejects common
> >sense cost-benefit analysis as heresy.
> >
> >   That's why they punished the president for his 1.7 million acre land
> >grab in Utah by defeating that state's only Democratic Congressman,
> >Bill Orton. That's why they re-elected a Republican Congress for the
> >first time in 70 years. That's why states from Maine to Montana
> >rejected extremist ballot measures.
> >
> >   In Michigan, for example, by a two to one margin, voters rejected a
> >measure sponsored by animal rights activists that would have virtually
> >eliminated bear hunting.
> >
> >   In our democracy, that is our saving grace -- the vote of the people.
> >And that is the best reflection of Warren Brookes'  legacy -- a voting
> >public that is better informed on issues from the environment to the
> economy.
> >
> >   The voters don't make the right choice every time, but with the wise
> > balance of power devised by our founding fathers, I   believe that
> >America is back on track to developing an environmental policy
> >based on sound science, relative risk, and free market principles.
> >
> >   We won't get there overnight, but we will get there. That's our
> >promise to Warren Brookes and his legacy to us.
> >
> >   Thank you very much.
> >
> >
> >
> >                About CEI | Public Policy
> >.
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Alex J. Sagady & Associates        Email:  asagady@sojourn.com
> >Environmental Consulting and Database Systems
> >PO Box 39  East Lansing, MI  48826-0039
> >(517) 332-6971 (voice); (517) 332-8987 (fax)
> >
> >
> >
> >==============================================================
> >ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> >and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> >http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> >
> >Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> >majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> enviro-mich"
> >==============================================================
> >
> >
> Patrick Diehl
> Associate Director
> Michigan Environmental Council
> 119 Pere Marquette Dr., Suite 2A
> Lansing, Michigan 48912
> phone:  517-487-9539
> fax:    517-487-9541
> e-mail: patmec@voyager.net
> ==============================================================
> ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
> and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
> http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/
> Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
> majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
> ==============================================================

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"