|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 16 2014 15:46 Danglars wrote:
Wouldn't they always be private organizations, considering that private individuals elect some from their ranks to public office? In fact, to my memory, the only public organizations running candidates seem to be the likes of Kim Jong-Un, or maybe the ranks of the People's Republic of China. It is kind of a tricky business.
I don't know. It's just that at present they are so thoroughly intertwined with the operation of government, and the actions government takes, that they don't really seem like mere private organizations. It also means an awful lot of effective power in the hands of people not accountable to the public (like heads of RNC and DNC).
|
On March 16 2014 15:46 Danglars wrote:
Wouldn't they always be private organizations, considering that private individuals elect some from their ranks to public office? In fact, to my memory, the only public organizations running candidates seem to be the likes of Kim Jong-Un, or maybe the ranks of the People's Republic of China. It is kind of a tricky business.
Then again saying Kim Jong-Un is publically elected is a farce in itself - more accurate to say it's a private takeover of the country
|
Well here in Germany the government is subsidizing parties. I'd guess 30-45% of their expenses are payed through taxes. They have regulations though on how much they can spend for campaigns and what not. So you could say that our parties are at least like half public. I think it's a good thing because i'd be really scared to see parties completely being funded by individuals.
|
On March 17 2014 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Well here in Germany the government is subsidizing parties. I'd guess 30-45% of their expenses are payed through taxes. They have regulations though on how much they can spend for campaigns and what not. So you could say that our parties are at least like half public. I think it's a good thing because i'd be really scared to see parties completely being funded by individuals.
The US was like that to a certain extent, but if yo uwanted to receive funding from the government to run your election campaign you had to submit to a limit to the amount of money you could spend on it and both Obama and Romney rejected this because they could gather more money on their own, hence the increased cost of American elections. I have to agree, its pretty distasteful the way political parties just eat up donations and it basically guarantees that outsiders can never succeed.
|
Scary stuff, have to hope that is just very small minority of crazy spouting stuff off. I mean we have plenty big figures here in the US that are talking crazy stuff all the time. Nothing as bad a nuclear war though.
|
On March 17 2014 06:19 Sub40APM wrote:
I have to agree, its pretty distasteful the way political parties just eat up donations and it basically guarantees that outsiders can never succeed.
I think distasteful is a pretty modest description. It blows my mind that people are living on foodstamps and two politicians spend over two billion dollars on advertisements. I mean they just could agree two spend 5% of what they did and give the rest to charity and it would still be a level playing field.
|
|
|
On March 16 2014 13:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 12:46 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 11:14 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact. Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens. I think your second point is crazy-ish because social conservatives are still the bed rock of the parties support. I think it actually makes sense. You're not going to win with someone who has 19th century attitudes towards social issues.There's also a giant group of non voters that just waits to be persuaded. I agree that you dont, which is why I think the Democrats will win the presidency in '16 despite everything assuming Hillary runs, but the power structures in the Republican party are set up in favor of more conservative groupings. Romney was the most moderate person outside of Huntsman in their primary and he basically 'won' by default -- everyone else in there at some point was ahead of him, even total fraudsters like Herman Caine. And when he lost members of the GOP said something like 'we went with a moderate and we lost because Democrats already occupy that position, we need to be more extreme" It may sound ridiculous but the only way I think the Republicans are going to win again is if they become some kind of grassroots, "down to earth" party. Like socially progressive and libertarian, in favor of giving rights to the states and the people or something like that. From a foreigners perspective I find it really surprising that they still get the votes they get, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their voter-base is eroding.
Libertarians don't care about the rights of a state.
Besides, there are many Republicans who stand a chance. Even Romney, who I thought had zero chance of winning at the beginning, had a very good chance until his one fuck-up blew up in his face.
The main problem with Democrats in 2016 is that Obama has given Republicans so many different ammo to go after them regardless of who may be running. I am not saying Republicans are going to win, but the field looks very even right now. 2014 election will be a very good indication of how the country might vote in 2016.
|
On March 16 2014 16:35 IgnE wrote:
Yeah "unleash" us some economic growth. I'd love to see that.
Definitely would, because we haven't had one for past 6 years (and likely won't for another 2 more years).
|
On March 17 2014 12:35 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 13:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 12:46 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 11:14 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact. Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens. I think your second point is crazy-ish because social conservatives are still the bed rock of the parties support. I think it actually makes sense. You're not going to win with someone who has 19th century attitudes towards social issues.There's also a giant group of non voters that just waits to be persuaded. I agree that you dont, which is why I think the Democrats will win the presidency in '16 despite everything assuming Hillary runs, but the power structures in the Republican party are set up in favor of more conservative groupings. Romney was the most moderate person outside of Huntsman in their primary and he basically 'won' by default -- everyone else in there at some point was ahead of him, even total fraudsters like Herman Caine. And when he lost members of the GOP said something like 'we went with a moderate and we lost because Democrats already occupy that position, we need to be more extreme" It may sound ridiculous but the only way I think the Republicans are going to win again is if they become some kind of grassroots, "down to earth" party. Like socially progressive and libertarian, in favor of giving rights to the states and the people or something like that. From a foreigners perspective I find it really surprising that they still get the votes they get, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their voter-base is eroding. Libertarians don't care about the rights of a state. Besides, there are many Republicans who stand a chance. Even Romney, who I thought had zero chance of winning at the beginning, had a very good chance until his one fuck-up blew up in his face. The main problem with Democrats in 2016 is that Obama has given Republicans so many different ammo to go after them regardless of who may be running. I am not saying Republicans are going to win, but the field looks very even right now. 2014 election will be a very good indication of how the country might vote in 2016.
The elections between the Presidential elections have historically been terrible predictors of how the subsequent Presidential elections go. So far in most polls Hilary is crushing any Republican, whether a generic one or specific personalities.
|
On March 17 2014 01:48 Nyxisto wrote:
I think the GOP doesn't really know what the internet is and what the ICANN does. Could someone please enlighten me how giving the authority to handle the webs identifiers, domains and adresses to a UN non-profit leads to Vladimir Putin controlling the internet?
Are you that naive?
|
On March 17 2014 12:41 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 01:48 Nyxisto wrote:
I think the GOP doesn't really know what the internet is and what the ICANN does. Could someone please enlighten me how giving the authority to handle the webs identifiers, domains and adresses to a UN non-profit leads to Vladimir Putin controlling the internet? Are you that naive?
No, actually I'm asking a rethorical question and pointing at the extreme slippery slope fallacy that is going on
|
On March 17 2014 12:39 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 12:35 jellyjello wrote:On March 16 2014 13:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 12:46 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 11:14 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact. Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens. I think your second point is crazy-ish because social conservatives are still the bed rock of the parties support. I think it actually makes sense. You're not going to win with someone who has 19th century attitudes towards social issues.There's also a giant group of non voters that just waits to be persuaded. I agree that you dont, which is why I think the Democrats will win the presidency in '16 despite everything assuming Hillary runs, but the power structures in the Republican party are set up in favor of more conservative groupings. Romney was the most moderate person outside of Huntsman in their primary and he basically 'won' by default -- everyone else in there at some point was ahead of him, even total fraudsters like Herman Caine. And when he lost members of the GOP said something like 'we went with a moderate and we lost because Democrats already occupy that position, we need to be more extreme" It may sound ridiculous but the only way I think the Republicans are going to win again is if they become some kind of grassroots, "down to earth" party. Like socially progressive and libertarian, in favor of giving rights to the states and the people or something like that. From a foreigners perspective I find it really surprising that they still get the votes they get, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their voter-base is eroding. Libertarians don't care about the rights of a state. Besides, there are many Republicans who stand a chance. Even Romney, who I thought had zero chance of winning at the beginning, had a very good chance until his one fuck-up blew up in his face. The main problem with Democrats in 2016 is that Obama has given Republicans so many different ammo to go after them regardless of who may be running. I am not saying Republicans are going to win, but the field looks very even right now. 2014 election will be a very good indication of how the country might vote in 2016. The elections between the Presidential elections have historically been terrible predictors of how the subsequent Presidential elections go. So far in most polls Hilary is crushing any Republican, whether a generic one or specific personalities.
And you are using polls right now as your basis of who is going to win in 2016? Those polls are not an accurate indication of the entire general populace. General election in swing states or key battle grounds is a much better indicator of how the country feels.
|
On March 17 2014 12:35 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 13:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 12:46 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 11:14 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact. Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens. I think your second point is crazy-ish because social conservatives are still the bed rock of the parties support. I think it actually makes sense. You're not going to win with someone who has 19th century attitudes towards social issues.There's also a giant group of non voters that just waits to be persuaded. I agree that you dont, which is why I think the Democrats will win the presidency in '16 despite everything assuming Hillary runs, but the power structures in the Republican party are set up in favor of more conservative groupings. Romney was the most moderate person outside of Huntsman in their primary and he basically 'won' by default -- everyone else in there at some point was ahead of him, even total fraudsters like Herman Caine. And when he lost members of the GOP said something like 'we went with a moderate and we lost because Democrats already occupy that position, we need to be more extreme" It may sound ridiculous but the only way I think the Republicans are going to win again is if they become some kind of grassroots, "down to earth" party. Like socially progressive and libertarian, in favor of giving rights to the states and the people or something like that. From a foreigners perspective I find it really surprising that they still get the votes they get, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their voter-base is eroding. Libertarians don't care about the rights of a state. Besides, there are many Republicans who stand a chance. Even Romney, who I thought had zero chance of winning at the beginning, had a very good chance until his one fuck-up blew up in his face. The main problem with Democrats in 2016 is that Obama has given Republicans so many different ammo to go after them regardless of who may be running. I am not saying Republicans are going to win, but the field looks very even right now. 2014 election will be a very good indication of how the country might vote in 2016.
Based on what? What evidence do you have that midterm election results have any predictive power at all?
|
On March 17 2014 12:44 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2014 12:39 Sub40APM wrote:On March 17 2014 12:35 jellyjello wrote:On March 16 2014 13:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 13:42 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:On March 16 2014 12:46 Sub40APM wrote:On March 16 2014 11:14 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2014 11:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) — Planned changes to the Republican Party's presidential selection process are part of a rebuilding process that will strengthen the GOP brand and hopefully make its presidential nominee more competitive in 2016, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told California Republicans on Friday, calling the GOP's current primary process "a complete disaster."
Priebus said shortening the primary process by moving up the national convention at which the nominee is typically selected to June and cutting the number of debates are "not an establishment takeover. This is using your brain. Everything's not a conspiracy."
"I think a traveling circus of debates is insanity in this party," Priebus told about 200 delegates. "We're proposing to have fewer than 10, and this time around, we're going to pick the moderators."
Priebus is proposing to hold just 10 debates for the would-be GOP nominees in 2016, compared with the 27 held ahead of the 2012 race in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was eventually selected as the party's nominee.
The chairman also touted a key victory this week in a hard-fought Florida congressional race that is seen as a possible bellwether of November midterm election. Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a special election Tuesday that largely turned on President Barack Obama's health care law. Source This is a bold move that is clearly aimed at being anti-teaparty. Tea party candidates tend to throw a huge fit and make their more reasonable counterparts look weak or lacking in fortitude. This will allow the GOP to basically make sure only a moderate will be able to make a big impact. Edit: And with this in mind, am I the only one crazy enough to think that the GOP may end up needing to have a candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro marijuana legalization? I think this change to their primary may indicate that they are finding they need to have a democratic way of making sure that happens. I think your second point is crazy-ish because social conservatives are still the bed rock of the parties support. I think it actually makes sense. You're not going to win with someone who has 19th century attitudes towards social issues.There's also a giant group of non voters that just waits to be persuaded. I agree that you dont, which is why I think the Democrats will win the presidency in '16 despite everything assuming Hillary runs, but the power structures in the Republican party are set up in favor of more conservative groupings. Romney was the most moderate person outside of Huntsman in their primary and he basically 'won' by default -- everyone else in there at some point was ahead of him, even total fraudsters like Herman Caine. And when he lost members of the GOP said something like 'we went with a moderate and we lost because Democrats already occupy that position, we need to be more extreme" It may sound ridiculous but the only way I think the Republicans are going to win again is if they become some kind of grassroots, "down to earth" party. Like socially progressive and libertarian, in favor of giving rights to the states and the people or something like that. From a foreigners perspective I find it really surprising that they still get the votes they get, but I think it's reasonable to assume that their voter-base is eroding. Libertarians don't care about the rights of a state. Besides, there are many Republicans who stand a chance. Even Romney, who I thought had zero chance of winning at the beginning, had a very good chance until his one fuck-up blew up in his face. The main problem with Democrats in 2016 is that Obama has given Republicans so many different ammo to go after them regardless of who may be running. I am not saying Republicans are going to win, but the field looks very even right now. 2014 election will be a very good indication of how the country might vote in 2016. The elections between the Presidential elections have historically been terrible predictors of how the subsequent Presidential elections go. So far in most polls Hilary is crushing any Republican, whether a generic one or specific personalities. And you are using polls right now as your basis of who is going to win in 2016? Those polls are not an accurate indication of the entire general populace. General election in swing states or key battle grounds is a much better indicator of how the country feels.
Yes, best indicators are the best, but general polls of candidates > performance of a party at the mid term elections.
|
This story caught my eye since I was just talking about my opposition to an out of control bureaucracy. I want clear limits on government power to preserve the freedom of the individual and his legal rights. The structural limits of power, now in tatters, are just as important as the specific enumerated prohibitions, like present in the first amendment.
All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.
But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.
“I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”
But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.
The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.
The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.
“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.[...]
The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.
If Johnson doesn’t comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he’s subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.[...]
“Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”
source (including actions on behalf of senators from his state)
Essentially, he's being told he must first prove his exemption to this act which gives the EPA power in the matter. He's being threatened with over $37,000 grand per day in civil penalties and over $37,000 in fines for statutory violations. He sought and obtained a state permit to do it, the responsible thing to do in any sane representative government. Here comes the EPA and its presumption of guilt over innocence.
Here comes the EPA, which should be limited to the narrow power under the Commerce Clause. Now, the feds are peering into this guy's private property. They even have the gall to demand a return to the original layout of his own property--on their own schedule with 30day and 60day due dates.
I want a return to limits on the powers of the federal government so that any nutcase wouldn't have the power to do so much harm. The need is great since these agencies will presume guilt and levy punishment without even a trial. If you want to amend the constitution to allow certain other regulatory oversight, then let's have that debate on necessity and protection against abuse.
|
United States43197 Posts
Presumably there is a second side to that story because as it is it's pretty inexplicable.
|
Sounds like it's just a case of improper organizational governance
|
Yeah, just as with any large organization, sometimes people in it do stupid things and need to be reined in.
I'm sure that stuff happens all the time at all levels of government, as well as in non-governmental organizations and businesses.
|
On March 18 2014 04:51 Danglars wrote:This story caught my eye since I was just talking about my opposition to an out of control bureaucracy. I want clear limits on government power to preserve the freedom of the individual and his legal rights. The structural limits of power, now in tatters, are just as important as the specific enumerated prohibitions, like present in the first amendment. Show nested quote +All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.
But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.
“I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”
But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.
The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.
The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.
“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.[...]
The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.
If Johnson doesn’t comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he’s subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.[...]
“Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”
source (including actions on behalf of senators from his state)Essentially, he's being told he must first prove his exemption to this act which gives the EPA power in the matter. He's being threatened with over $37,000 grand per day in civil penalties and over $37,000 in fines for statutory violations. He sought and obtained a state permit to do it, the responsible thing to do in any sane representative government. Here comes the EPA and its presumption of guilt over innocence. Here comes the EPA, which should be limited to the narrow power under the Commerce Clause. Now, the feds are peering into this guy's private property. They even have the gall to demand a return to the original layout of his own property--on their own schedule with 30day and 60day due dates. I want a return to limits on the powers of the federal government so that any nutcase wouldn't have the power to do so much harm. The need is great since these agencies will presume guilt and levy punishment without even a trial. If you want to amend the constitution to allow certain other regulatory oversight, then let's have that debate on necessity and protection against abuse.
Now, I can't comment on the specifics about his individual case because I don't know much about it, but here's the thing: from an initial reading of the article, this guy is a perfect example of why it makes sense to have regulations governing this sort of thing. Water is a common resource, as are recreationally harvested natural populations. Managing water quality is a complex thing, and the spread of invasive species is only one example on why it's important to regulate the creation of artificial water bodies. The EPA is claiming that water is discharging from this pond into streams. Water originating from an artificial pond is probably likely to have quite a high sediment load, particularly during high water events. While one artificial pond flowing into a natural stream might not have a large impact, what it ten people built these ponds? Twenty? One hundred? Coupled with issues like agricultural run-off (since this dude has a farm, it's likely to be a particular problem from this pond) or forestry run-off, you could have a significant sedimentation problem in the stream/river, which could wipe out fish species (and, since I know you probably only value things you can put a price tag on, let me emphasize valuable recreational fish species).
I know you hate all government regulation with a passion that borders on absurdity, but this dude is stocking non-native invasive fish species in his pond (although this itself might be legal in his state, sometimes states have fucked up laws on the books regarding recreational fisheries). If that pond is not up to proper code and the stocked pond is not completely isolated, and the fish are capable of breeding in it, those fish will escape into adjacent water bodies, where they may possibly spread to the entire watershed. Cause, you know, they are "invasive" and that's what they do. Stopping alevins/fry (i.e. extremely small juveniles), let alone adult trout, from escaping a contained environment is a really fucking hard thing to do.
I mean Jesus Christ, he also actually dammed up a natural water body, too! Those things have actual impacts on the environmental integrity of the stream, ranging from population fragmentation to increased sedimentation.
It makes sense to limit these things and regulate them. Again, I'm not sure about the specifics, maybe he was up to state code, but what if he is in a watershed that crosses state borders (which is basically 100% guaranteed)? Then the EPA is (or at least should be) the appropriate managing body, and he should be applying to them for a permit. Maybe this isn't the recognized protocol, but then that's an issue of allocating management to the appropriate government regime. The management itself is not the problem. Maybe the EPA are being harsh on this guy (those are pretty harsh fines and pretty strict time-frames), but managing water bodies is an important function. What one person does can impact everyone downstream, and the actions of multiple individuals can have a strong negative cumulative effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
