President Obama is rightly criticizing the big tax breaks that big oil gets from government. Why does this seem to be an issue only when oil and gas prices hit about $4 a gallon? Where is all that outrage when it is at $3.50 a gallon? Taxpayers are still shelling out for companies making obscene amounts of money.
Consistent outrage is so much more convincing than politically timed outrage.
President Obama’s rationalization for bombing Libya is really, really weak. Obama said that ”it is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs,” but adds: Tthat cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.”
So how do we decide when to act on behalf of what’s right and when to let the massacre proceed unabated?
US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is pretty public in his criticism of the Federal Highway Administration for proposing rules that would require new highway signs and cost states a fortune to implement.
LaHood on Tuesday said this: “”I believe that this regulation makes no sense. It does not properly take into account the high costs that local governments would have to bear. States, cities, and towns should not be required to spend money that they don’t have to replace perfectly good traffic signs.”
The Federal Highway Administration is re-opening the proposed comment period on the rule, which would require mixed case lettering on highway signs instead of all capitals. Here’s how explicit the FHWA was Monday in announcing the massive change in direction:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today called for additional public input on compliance dates for a number of federal traffic control regulations, ranging from road sign reflectivity to crosswalk timing.
“Given the difficult economic conditions states currently face, asking for additional input on compliance dates is the right thing to do,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to be sure these safety requirements are reasonable, fair and cost-effective.”
The public will have 45 days from tomorrow to submit comments to the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to www.regulations.gov.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation’s changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques.
In finalizing updates to the MUTCD, FHWA works with and receives input from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, composed of more than 250 key stakeholders representing state departments of transportation, city and county governments, academia, and trade groups such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the American Automobile Association (AAA).
The FHWA also seeks input from the public on changes to the MUTCD, including compliance dates. Comments are solicited from the general public, state and local highway agencies, the insurance industry, law enforcement agencies, incident management and maintenance personnel, academic institutions, planning, construction and engineering organizations, and other industry stakeholders.
“Safety is our priority, but so is good government,” said Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez. “Listening to the public helps to ensure both.”
No wonder this story stayed hidden until LaHood’s very explicit statement — who the hell could tell from the FHWA statement just what was happening?
Shame on the FHWA for trying to disguise an important decision and not being explicit with the public about the topics for which public comment is being sought. Hey, kids, the Obama administration is supposed to be all about transparency.
The White House is setting up a committee on the Internet and privacy, according to the Washington Post.
Reporter Cecelia King emphasizes the social media / privacy / corporate aspect of the committee’s future work, but given the Obama administration’s not-so-good track record on Internet / constitutional issues, the committee could well end up trodding merrily across the Constitution in civil rights tracking cleats. Law enforcement and domestic spooks will be well-represented on the committee. From the Post posting:
A blog post last Sunday on the National Science and Technology Council Web site said the subcommittee will include members of several federal agencies, such as the Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security and State departments. Cameron Kerry, general counsel at the Commerce Department, and Christopher Schroeder, assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, will head the group.
Representatives of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission were also invited. And the White House will have representatives from its Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, U.S. Trade Representative office and National Security Staff Cybersecurity Directorate.
“In this digital age, a thriving and dynamic economy requires Internet policies that promote innovation domestically and globally while ensuring strong and sensible protections of individuals’ private information and the ability of governments to meet their obligations to protect public safety,” Kerry and Schroeder wrote in the NSTC blog post.
The Obama administration wants to keep America safe from terrorists and constitutional protections.
Mr. President, sir. If you do the latter, then the former win. You might as well turn over the keys to the country right now.
One of the administration’s latest assaults on civil liberties occurred, last week, when it argued in federal court (again) that people illegally spied upon by the federal government should not be allowed to seek redress in court because oh my gosh, there are state secrets involved! The brief was filed in response to an Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit challenging the government’s electronic spying program.
That’s a tune we should be familiar with by now. The government acts in a wholly illegal manner, then invokes national security to protect its spymasters and bureaucrats. From the government’s brief:
As the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) explained in his declaration asserting the state secrets privilege, the privilege extends to key evidence implicated by plaintiffs’ claims, such as whether plaintiffs themselves had been subjected to any surveillance of the type alleged in their complaints. Confirmation or denial of such claims would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.
That argument is a head-spinner on its own merit, but the government has another layer of craziness that should propel the collective national noggin around a few more times on its axis. The feds argue that citizens should not use the courts to make the federal government obey the law.
Plaintiffs’ claims here fail to satisfy the requirements of prudential standing because they assert a generalized grievance concerning intelligence policy that is better suited to resolution by the political branches, in light of the extremely sensitive national security concerns at stake and the paramount need for secrecy.
So there you have it: the Obama administration believes in the constitution — except for those pesky parts about jury trials in civil cases, judicial authority and unreasonable search and seizure. Oh, yeah, and that separation of powers thing the framers were so careful to construct.
The Obama administration defending bad conduct with bad arguments that will be misused for decades. We will regret it.