Lobbyists scoff at the idea of children’s health

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The New York Times has a big article about the fight for ozone regulation, which apparently was pretty much EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson versus the world. It's an interesting meditation on the power of buzzwords -- namedropping "the economy" and "jobs" helped neutralize support for the regulations, even though analyses showed that they wouldn't have significant economic effect. But it's also an illustration of how calculating lobbyists and other political gamesmen can be.

Here's how the chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Jackson's stance on ozone regulations:

“Lisa is very smart, cordial, friendly,” Mr. Josten said of Ms. Jackson. “She listened to us, but then talked about how important it was to do this, the lung thing, the asthma thing, the kids’ health thing. She felt it was important to go ahead.”

Mr. Josten added: “The funny thing was nobody wanted to come right out and say, ‘Are you guys thinking this through? Your boss is up for re-election next year, do you really want to shut down industrial permitting? You’re going to have a major negative impact on the economy.’”

Oh, that Lisa and her obsession with the whole "kids' health thing." It's almost like she thinks it's more important to prevent children's lungs from being damaged than to bolster Obama's political capital. She'll never get ahead in this town with an attitude like that!

straight to the source

• Re-election Strategy Is Tied to a Shift on Smog, New York Times

[Obama 2012 1,714]

[Captain Oates 911]

The balanced approach woulds be to abort all the kids, thus doing away with need for clean air and unleashing the forces of capitalism without regulation at the same time

Now which party would support that ?

vote Ron Paul !