More Holes In National Security: Our Own Rules
Final Chemical Security Rules Impose Limits On State Laws
In other words, the executive branch of our federal government is removing all state rights to regulate industry and security within the confines of state borders if the fed doesn't like what the states have in mind. Further, should a state find the efforts of the Department of Homeland security lacking any real protection--which has been the case in its response to disasters, protection of nuclear power plants, our ports, our borders, our transportation systems and, according to recent reports, the capacity of our own military to defend our shores--it faces illegitimate, albeit very powerful, challenges to its rights to regulate industry within its own borders.
It would appear, without the outright consent of congress, that the executive branch, under the continuous grab for imperial power under Emperor George W. Bush, is using the laws passed to protect us in such a way as to force us to be at risk.
Yes, that is the bottom line on this misuse of authority. Given that the IRS, which has law enforcement and national security authority, cannot keep our taxpayer information safe, it now appears that Michael Chertoff and company, under orders from the Emperor and his Praetorian Guard (Cheney, Gonzalez, Rice, et al), want to have final authority to make our chemical plants and transportation systems safe. But can they assure us that these absolute regulations, the inability to enforce safety and security measures within the chemical industry, and the demonstrated systematic and systemic failures of our federal government will be able to provide for our safety?
Nay! They cannot. So why does the federal government, under the umbrella of national and homeland security want to completely take over the regulation of the way the chemical industry handles security and safety. The answer is simple and we only need to examine the lobbying efforts of the chemical industry to realize that the states have been moving toward increasing limits and regulations on the chemical plants within state borders in order to provide some real measures of safety and security... and this might actually cost these industries some money and force them to clean up their collective act regarding the overwhelming disregard for safety, security, environment and health that this industry has had since its original development (c.f. W.R. Grace in Massachusetts, Love Canal in New York, PG&E in California, et al).
But this effort on the part of the DHS is not about safety and security. It is about the GOP approach to big business and preventing the states from hampering the way the chemical industry has operated without real limits and regulation from as early as the late 1700s. The lead industry is a good example of this power. In the late 1800s (1872 to be exact) it was clear that the lead used in the tanning industries, the paint industries, the glass industries, the pottery and ceramics industries and construction was harming not only the environment, but creating numerous health hazards. The lead used to process furs caused so much brain damage, systemic toxicity, and concomitant mental health issues that two new phrases came into our lexicon: "as mad as a hatter" and "mad hatter."
The lead used in paints were causing lead poisoning of our children in homes where the paint was allowed to chip and scrape. Finally, in 1972 congress found the backbone to deal with the lead paint issue, forcing the paint industry to remove all lead from paints used in residential and commercial settings, but did not find the intestinal fortitude to enforce the law until the late 1980s and early 1990s. But both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government did not have the insight, guts or brains to force the paint and lead industries to pay for its contamination and removal of the same, but put the onus upon the homeowners that bought or inherited the problems after decades of deliberately ignoring the issues. The resulting lead removal industry that developed also lacked proper regulation and oversight, leading to thousands of homeowners and landlords bearing the brunt of not only removal costs, but the gouging by lead removal contractors. This was especially true on the East Coast where lead paint had been used for at least two hundred years.
Even the dry cleaning and garment industries have been protected by the federal government by way of the congress and federal agencies. For almost 50 years we have known that the solvents used in dry cleaning have been not only harmful for our environment (especially because it was not disposed of properly in far too many instances), but also for our health.
The list of problems with the way our chemical plants and industries have been regulated is long and quite tedious to read, but the cause of these problems centers on our own government and the way it has interfered with state efforts to regulate matters in a tighter manner. Of course, most of our states do not have a great record on these matters either. With the exception of those states where clean environment is the source of large sums of money and the tax base (i.e. New Hampshire, Vermont), or some other vested interest that the politicians could exploit, the way the states have dealt with chemical manufacturers, transporters and industrial users has been so lax that we have approximately 450,000 brownfield sites across our nation. Our industries have created almost a half million sites that are so contaminated that we had to create a "super fund" to manage the effort to clean these sites up. And we need to take notice of how poorly that effort has been managed.
In other words, they got caught deliberately putting the bite on state and local authority, back-peddled a bit, but then asserted an inherent right to usurp more authority than the Constitution or the laws passed by Congress actually allow... but what the hell, if Bush can thumb his nose at Congress regarding the way the invasion and occupation of Iraq is being handled, why shouldn't he and his fascist thugs be able to do the same with our own safety, security and health?
The rape of our liberty, national security and our inherent rights continues under the banner of Emperor George W. Bush. It is just a shame that no one seems to be able to stop this rectal polyp in his tracks.
The Homeland Security Department on Monday issued long-anticipated final rules for regulating security at chemical facilities, including one barring state and local governments from enacting chemical security laws that conflict with the federal regulations.
In other words, the executive branch of our federal government is removing all state rights to regulate industry and security within the confines of state borders if the fed doesn't like what the states have in mind. Further, should a state find the efforts of the Department of Homeland security lacking any real protection--which has been the case in its response to disasters, protection of nuclear power plants, our ports, our borders, our transportation systems and, according to recent reports, the capacity of our own military to defend our shores--it faces illegitimate, albeit very powerful, challenges to its rights to regulate industry within its own borders.
It would appear, without the outright consent of congress, that the executive branch, under the continuous grab for imperial power under Emperor George W. Bush, is using the laws passed to protect us in such a way as to force us to be at risk.
Yes, that is the bottom line on this misuse of authority. Given that the IRS, which has law enforcement and national security authority, cannot keep our taxpayer information safe, it now appears that Michael Chertoff and company, under orders from the Emperor and his Praetorian Guard (Cheney, Gonzalez, Rice, et al), want to have final authority to make our chemical plants and transportation systems safe. But can they assure us that these absolute regulations, the inability to enforce safety and security measures within the chemical industry, and the demonstrated systematic and systemic failures of our federal government will be able to provide for our safety?
Nay! They cannot. So why does the federal government, under the umbrella of national and homeland security want to completely take over the regulation of the way the chemical industry handles security and safety. The answer is simple and we only need to examine the lobbying efforts of the chemical industry to realize that the states have been moving toward increasing limits and regulations on the chemical plants within state borders in order to provide some real measures of safety and security... and this might actually cost these industries some money and force them to clean up their collective act regarding the overwhelming disregard for safety, security, environment and health that this industry has had since its original development (c.f. W.R. Grace in Massachusetts, Love Canal in New York, PG&E in California, et al).
But this effort on the part of the DHS is not about safety and security. It is about the GOP approach to big business and preventing the states from hampering the way the chemical industry has operated without real limits and regulation from as early as the late 1700s. The lead industry is a good example of this power. In the late 1800s (1872 to be exact) it was clear that the lead used in the tanning industries, the paint industries, the glass industries, the pottery and ceramics industries and construction was harming not only the environment, but creating numerous health hazards. The lead used to process furs caused so much brain damage, systemic toxicity, and concomitant mental health issues that two new phrases came into our lexicon: "as mad as a hatter" and "mad hatter."
The lead used in paints were causing lead poisoning of our children in homes where the paint was allowed to chip and scrape. Finally, in 1972 congress found the backbone to deal with the lead paint issue, forcing the paint industry to remove all lead from paints used in residential and commercial settings, but did not find the intestinal fortitude to enforce the law until the late 1980s and early 1990s. But both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government did not have the insight, guts or brains to force the paint and lead industries to pay for its contamination and removal of the same, but put the onus upon the homeowners that bought or inherited the problems after decades of deliberately ignoring the issues. The resulting lead removal industry that developed also lacked proper regulation and oversight, leading to thousands of homeowners and landlords bearing the brunt of not only removal costs, but the gouging by lead removal contractors. This was especially true on the East Coast where lead paint had been used for at least two hundred years.
Even the dry cleaning and garment industries have been protected by the federal government by way of the congress and federal agencies. For almost 50 years we have known that the solvents used in dry cleaning have been not only harmful for our environment (especially because it was not disposed of properly in far too many instances), but also for our health.
The list of problems with the way our chemical plants and industries have been regulated is long and quite tedious to read, but the cause of these problems centers on our own government and the way it has interfered with state efforts to regulate matters in a tighter manner. Of course, most of our states do not have a great record on these matters either. With the exception of those states where clean environment is the source of large sums of money and the tax base (i.e. New Hampshire, Vermont), or some other vested interest that the politicians could exploit, the way the states have dealt with chemical manufacturers, transporters and industrial users has been so lax that we have approximately 450,000 brownfield sites across our nation. Our industries have created almost a half million sites that are so contaminated that we had to create a "super fund" to manage the effort to clean these sites up. And we need to take notice of how poorly that effort has been managed.
Public interest groups, environmental organizations and some lawmakers objected to the department's assertion that it can pre-empt state laws when draft rules were issued in December -- and there was no rush to applaud the rules Monday.
The department admitted the draft rules were too broad on the issue of pre-emption, and in Monday's final rules, it tried to specify when state laws will be overridden.
"Some states have existing laws for regulating chemical facilities," the department said in a statement. "Only state laws and requirements that conflict or interfere with these regulations, or the purpose for the regulations, will be pre-empted. Currently, the department has no reason to conclude that any existing state laws are applied in a way that would impede the federal rule."
The department also maintains the authority to pre-empt state health, safety or environmental protections, according to the rules.
In other words, they got caught deliberately putting the bite on state and local authority, back-peddled a bit, but then asserted an inherent right to usurp more authority than the Constitution or the laws passed by Congress actually allow... but what the hell, if Bush can thumb his nose at Congress regarding the way the invasion and occupation of Iraq is being handled, why shouldn't he and his fascist thugs be able to do the same with our own safety, security and health?
The rape of our liberty, national security and our inherent rights continues under the banner of Emperor George W. Bush. It is just a shame that no one seems to be able to stop this rectal polyp in his tracks.
posted by Jim Downey at 3:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home