I really wish journalists would read the law at issue before asking questions, because the EPA spokesman's line about the "tie" thing is not just plain malarkey, it's also a potential violation of the law. Looking at the Clean Air Act, Section 209(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7543), which authorizes the California waiver. The statute itself says that the "Administrator" shall be the one to decide if CA gets the waiver. If Bush decided, not Johnson, then that violates the Clean Air Act . Not that those kinds of violations have stopped this administration before, but I hope Waxman knows the law better than the journalist who was talking to the EPA spokesman. It may not make much of a difference what tie Johnson puts on, but it sure as hell makes a difference whether Johnson wakes up and decides whether or not he's going to follow the law today.

Posted at May 20, 2008 11:59 AM in response to Today's Must Read

Congressman Blumenauer,

Thanks for the great post. I want to ask you about how this farm bill will affect our trade priorities, specifically with respect to the Doha round of the WTO. The last farm bill was a slap in the face to the rest of the world and further signaled how the Bush Administration insists on unilateral policies, even when they are highly counter-productive. As anyone who follows this issue knows, this bill is one of the last opportunities to put the moribund Doha round back on track. Can you explain to us how you plan on getting us back to the bargaining table, so that we can help the 900 million poor farmers in third world countries? Thanks again for your time here.

Posted at June 4, 2007 8:02 PM in response to A Food and Farm Bill of Rights

Though this does spring off an idea I read in the Economist (the train to work is very long), I think they make a good point: the CAFTA treaty provides a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to negotiate on the Doha Round, which is really what we should be worrying about. This whole CAFTA deal (as Cowen notes in point 7) is really pretty small potatoes; the real deal to watch is the deal (in whatever form it takes) that comes out of Doha.

But here I think many of the moderate Dems that Matt was talking about should be perking their ears up. This may in fact be the first trade deal that actually benefits third world countries, an issue that should reverbrate strongly in the Democratic party. There's a reason that this round is also known as the "Doha Development Agenda." After the Uruguay round, third world countries began to realize just how shafted they really were from the deal, especially from the agreement on agriculture that was attached to it 1995.

The point here is that there is this great issue right here that is waiting for Dems to poach from Repubs. It's fiscally conservative (in the sense that free trade is "conservative"), but socially liberal in its effects on the third world and other developing countries. And the Republicans haven't touched it. So that's the import of CAFTA, IMO, that it is a stepping stone towards stealing the Doha round right out from under the noses of the Repubs.

Posted at June 23, 2005 9:56 AM in response to How To Think About CAFTA

This may be exceedingly obvious, yet somehow Tierney misses the point: the retirement age, that "elephant in the room," is already going up.  Look, right here: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/nra.html.  When anyone in my oppressed-by-my-grandma-who-needs-me-to-program-her-DVR generation wants to retire and gain full SS benefits, we're going to need to be 67, already two years older than my grandmother.  Also, Tierney fails to point out (selective use of evidence?  I am shocked.  Shocked.) that all those hordes of lazy old people retiring at 62 take reduced benefits.  The same website gives this example:

"NRA [Normal Retirement Age] is exactly age 66 and if you retire at exactly age 62, there are a total of 48 months of reduction. The reduction for the first 36 months is 5/9 of 36 percent, or 20 percent. The reduction for the remaining 12 months is 5/12 of 12 percent, or 5 percent. Thus, in this example, the total benefit reduction is 25 percent."

Granted, it's incredibly dense, otherwise it wouldn't be approved US jargon, but otherwise it makes the point: those lazy elderly bastards are actually doing me a favor by retiring early, since they take reduced benefits.

I never, ever thought I'd say this, but I miss Safire.

Posted at June 15, 2005 6:42 AM in response to Timesman John Tierney