Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Obama Administration”

First take/sage grouse

The biggest news in Idaho last week was the determination by the federal Department of Interior that sage grouse would not be declared as endangered, in large part because of actions the states have taken where the grouse are extent. Some changes in federal environmental rules, reflecting the state activities, were put in place. A number of western governors cheered the development. Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter was not one of them. He, in fact, was displeased enough to file a lawsuit over the federal decision. Was this simply a matter of Obama Administration enthusiasts banding together for a big new federal rule? Before you conclude so, consider this statement from Oregon state Representative Cliff Benz, a Republican who represents a massive area on the east side of his state facing the Idaho border:

The decision not to list the Grouse under the ESA means that protection of the bird on private, and to a certain extent, federal land in Eastern Oregon will be regulated by Salem and not Washington, D. C. This means that when a land owner wants to change the use of his or her land, in a way that might affect core grouse habitat, they will be able to address the issue with Oregon, and not federal, people. Although change of regulation or arguing about the application of rules at the state level is difficult, it is not impossible. Changing regulations at the federal level is extraordinarily difficult and expensive, so avoiding a listing under the ESA and the massive wall of federal regulations that would have accompanied the listing, is a huge victory for Oregon.

Said Rep. Bentz (R-Ontario): "It is impossible to thank all of those who worked so hard for this hugely positive result, but I want to specifically thank Harney County Judge Steve Grasty, Oregon Cattlemen's Association Vice President John O'Keeffe, Drewsey rancher Carol Dunten, and from the Governor's office, Richard Whitman, (Senior Natural Resources Advisor), for the enormous amount of work, and time, and in many cases, unbelievable patience they devoted to the effort."

(photo/Jeannie Stafford, US Fish & Wildlife Service)

Tea parties, then and now

Jeff Kropf

The Boston Tea Party, 1846 Nathan Currier depiction

The 1773 incident now known as the Boston Tea Party was a truly spontaneous demonstration of immediate anger. It stemmed from the imposition of a royal tax on the tea, and was the result of a situation specific to Boston. Taxable tea was arriving from Britain in all 13 American colonies, but in the other 12 colonies protesters sent the tea on a return trip with their visible protests alone. It was a less simple matter in Boston, where the governor of Massachusetts had an insider business arrangement with the providers (two of them were his sons). And so a standoff. A meeting to consider options was called by the rabble-rouser Sam Adams, and in the midst of it some of the fed-up simply stalked out and (there are differing reports over how many were actually dressed as Indians) boarded the ship and tossed the tea into the harbor.

Some contrast with what's happening in terms of current "tea parties," aimed as criticism of the Obama Administration's financial policies, is worth a note. A string of tea party events are scheduled - for the 15th, of course - in Idaho (Boise, Coeur d'Alene, Council, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Priest River, Rexburg and Twin Falls), in Oregon (Astoria, Beaverton, Bend, Coos Bay, Corvallis, The Dalles, Enterprise, Springfield, Forest Grove, Grants Pass, Klamath Falls, La Grande, McMinnville, Medford, Milton Freewater, Newport, Oregon City, Portland, Reedsport, Rogue Riven, Roseburg, Salem, Tillamook) and in Washington (Anacortes, Bellevue, Bellingham, Colville, Everett, Grays Harbor, Issaquah, Kennewick, Moses Lake, Mount Vernon, Oak Harbor, Okanogan, Port Orchard, Pullman, Olympia, Shelton, Tacoma, Port Angeles, Redmond, Seattle, Spokane and Yakima).

That's a lot of scheduled spontaneity.

Some of what's happening is coming out of conservative blogs and networking. But there's a good deal more going here.

The central Tax Day Tea Party web site is well equipped with Resources, Media/Press, Team Wiki, Media Wiki, Social Networking and Store functions. Someone centrally put this up and organized rapidly and at considerable cost.

It turns out to be a lobbying astroturf project of Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. The liberal site Think Progress pointed out how

– Freedom Works staffers coordinate conference calls among protesters, contacting conservative activists to give them “sign ideas, sample press releases, and a map of events around the country.”

– Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to “take over” the planning of local events in Florida.

– Freedom Works provides how-to guides for delivering a “clear message” to the public and media.

– Freedom Works has several domain addresses — some of them made to look like they were set up by amateurs — to promote the protests.

– Americans for Prosperity is writing press releases and planning the events in New Jersey, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, Kansas, and several other states.

Freedom Works was "founded in 1984 and described as a 501c4 "grassroots organization," is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey. . . . FreedomWorks was formed in 2004 when Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America." It has worked on a number of policy matters, notably on Social Security, closely with the former Bush Administration.

There's nothing wrong with any of this - free speech is everyone's right, and everyone has the responsibility to protest government actions they disapprove of - but the parties shouldn't be described (as they are in some quarters) as an uprising from below. That would be a significant mischaracterization.

Side note: A distinction of core message. The message behind the first was, "No taxation without representation." Today, we pretty much have the "representation" part covered, which leaves the new message a tad unfocused. (The national tea party site doesn't focus on a specific message; the words on its core graphic are, "Silent Majority No More." That may give a clue as to the point and purpose.)

Not quite so much the warrior, maybe

Gil Kerlikowske

Gil Kerlikowske

For coming on to 40 years, we've had a "war on drugs," which has become quite a war indeed. The February 2 Washington Post Magazine featured a must-read, detailed report about the raid on the home of a small-town mayor in Maryland: "Acting on a mistaken drug trafficking suspicion, a SWAT team broke down their door, shot beloved pets and shattered a happy home. Was it an extreme reaction, or business as usual in America's war on drugs?" (The pretext for the raid was a box containing drugs, which police themselves had planted at the mayor's front door.) In a followup online chat, one of the writers remarked, "Obviously, one of the most frightening aspects of this sad tale is that it could happen to any one of us."

This paramilitary activity in our country has been a federally-driven, primarily, development, pushed by presidents of both parties for four decades; the results have included no diminishment of drug activity but unabated violence which is becoming increasingly hazardous. Might the Obama Administration try a different direction?

In nominating Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as "drug czar," Obama may be signaling that change is in the wind. Not radical, 180-degree turnarounds - which might have been what appointment of his predecessor, Norm Stamper, would have indicated - but significant adjustment at least.

The key touchstone here is Seattle Initiative 75, a 2003 measure which specifically called for making marijuana not legal exactly, but the lowest priority for law enforcement. The measure passed. It didn't pass with Kerlikowske's endorsement, but that has to be parsed: The Seattle Times reported local law enforcement considered it "vague, potentially confusing and unlikely to change what they do on the street" - in other words, not wrong as policy, but simply unnecessary. The followup sentence: "Arresting people for possessing marijuana for personal use, says Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, is not a priority now." Since the measure's passage, the chief appears to have abided by its terms, without complaint. (more…)

The case for Kitzhaber

John Kitzhaber

John Kitzhaber

UPDATE Kitzhaber is quoted as saying he wouldn't be interested in a cabinet-level job, though he might be willing to serve as a health policy advisor in some other capacity.

Among the many names circulating to replace Tom Daschle in the key Health & Human Services/health care reform position, many are well-known (from Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to Howard Dean and Kathleen Sebelius). One of the lesser-known to the national audience, but mentioned repeatedly as a prospect, is former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.

Every candidate mentioned so far has a set of assets and liabilities. Does Kitzhaber make sense for HHS?

He might make excellent sense, if a number of conditions - some applying to him, some to the situation in D.C. - hold true. So, the case for Kitzhaber:

First, on the D.C. side. Part of the appeal (for Barack Obama at least) of Daschle is that the South Dakotan has been tight with the new president: They could work closely together. Another asset is Daschle's experience in Washington, as a majority leader in the Senate: He knows how Washington works from deep inside, and presumably would be a power player in moving health policy. If those points are requirements for the position, then Kitzhaber isn't a fit.

But Obama could look at it another way. His administration already has plenty of D.C. insiders. His party has solid control of the Congress - legislation could be rammed through, if need be, if it has broad support. Building that support would be at least as important, and probably more important, outside Capitol Hill than it would be on. And while having a close friend in this key spot would be a nice thing, it shouldn't be necessary. Being president means developing a lot of relationships with a lot of people. And one other thing: Obama seems much more intent on the broad goals of health policy - such as getting everyone or nearly everyone insured - than on the details, which seem to be more negotiable. He might find it helpful to have in place someone who has worked through the implications of what's happening, and can make effective judgements on policy from a solid knowledge base.

And: There are members of Congress who have health care ideas of their own, and probably no one is more centrally based to push them than Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who already actually has bipartisan support for a large bill that actually would do quite a lot on health care.

Looked at that way, how might Kitzhaber fit? (more…)