by hilzoy
Via TPM: Apparently, all those nice people at the Transportation Department don't have enough to do these days. I mean, how else to explain the fact that one of them graciously decided to take the time to lobby for the auto industry against California's clean air standards?
"Hi ... this is Heideh Shahmoradi out here with the Department of Transportation. I'm not sure if you're aware but EPA is currently considering a petition from the State of California to set its own CO2 standards. We just wanted to let you know that if California were to receive this waiver it could lead to a patchwork of regulations on vehicle emissions which could have significant impact on the light truck and car industry. EPA is currently receiving the comments and the docket is open until June 15th, however tomorrow the EPA administrator will decide whether or not to extend that deadline. We're gauging to see if your boss would be interested in submitting comments or reaching out to your governor's office for them to submit comments to the docket, since this would greatly impact the auto facilities within your district."
Ms. Shahmoradi left this voicemail message for a Congressional staff person. Henry Waxman is not amused. Frankly, neither am I. The auto industry can take care of itself, and I'm sure it has lots of lobbyists making sure that its views on California's clean air standards are heard. The Transportation Department should leave that up to them, rather than using our tax dollars to try to stack another agency's comments on a matter it has not yet decided.
Would it be objectionable if I also pointed out yet another example of our tax dollars at work? (Not precisely a scandal; just something people might want to be aware of.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 12, 2007 at 06:05 PM
Hil, I'm sure this is just training, so when they have to lobby for something important, they will be ready. Think of the transportation department as English as a Second language students, and they are just providing some sheltered practice.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | June 12, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Karl Rove turned the entire federal government apparatus into just another division of the GOP and they still got cleared out in the 2006 election. If there's a better indication that the 2006 election was about Iraq, I don't know of one.
Bush is too stubborn to pull out of Iraq by election day 2008, ensuring the election of a Democratic president and (hopefully) an end to the war soon thereafter. Sadly, its likely that several hundred (if not thousand) U.S. troops and untold Iraqis will die between now and then in a tribute to Bush's petulance.
Posted by: Ugh | June 12, 2007 at 07:45 PM
"Sadly, its likely that several hundred (if not thousand) U.S. troops and untold Iraqis will die between now and then in a tribute to Bush's petulance."
Not just die; the wounded-to-killed ratio is ~10-1; not all of those are serious wounds, but many are, including lost limbs, body parts, brain wounds, and so on.
I always think of that when there's talk about the number of people killed.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 12, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Ugh,
"Bush is too stubborn to pull out of Iraq by election day 2008, ensuring the election of a Democratic president and (hopefully) an end to the war soon thereafter."
Boy is that an unwarranted assumption. Iraq is only the biggest issue to the American people now. When the SCLM get their narratives started on the nominees, no one can predict what trivia the election will turn on. If Edwards is the nominee, I can already predict his haircuts and inferred vanity will be more analyzed that Gore's clothes or sighs ever were.
Posted by: Dantheman | June 12, 2007 at 10:01 PM
DTM - Yes, fear the "folksy Fred Thompson."
Posted by: Ugh | June 12, 2007 at 10:13 PM
the wounded-to-killed ratio is ~10-1
The December 2006 National Geographic has a nice article about the wounded, their problems and what we are doing to rehab them. All the armor and medical improvements have increased the survival rate to 90%, compared with 76% in Vietnam. Their numbers back up yours, and give some idea of how expensive (in all ways) this war has become.
Posted by: cw | June 12, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Such cynicism.
Seeing a young Bush flunky blossom into a beautiful corporate lobbyist right before your eyes and all you can offer is snark.
Shame.
Posted by: alphie | June 12, 2007 at 10:51 PM
In some cases, the mere existence of political manipulations and waste of public money should perhaps offend us; in this case, I find the goal of this lobbying more alarming than the mere occurrence of it. The lobbying activity described here elevates the interests of national industry over the ability of states to make laws for the health and well-being of their citizens, and would hinder governments from protecting an essential public good such as the atmosphere.
Posted by: John Spragge | June 13, 2007 at 12:00 PM
"The lobbying activity described here elevates the interests of national industry over the ability of states to make laws for the health and well-being of their citizens, and would hinder governments from protecting an essential public good such as the atmosphere."
Sigh. Another lament for the passing of federalism.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | June 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM
You expected something different from this GOP, Sebastian? I sure hope not.
Posted by: Phil | June 13, 2007 at 07:03 PM
The auto industry can take care of itself
Well.. actually, it can't, at least not in the US, but it's still not the business of the Transportation Department to try and help it.
Posted by: Geoduck | June 14, 2007 at 02:36 PM